105506 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

the 2006 final Part B regulations 

implementing the 2004 reauthorization 

of IDEA and was further revised in 

2013. A correction to the docket ID for 

the May 18, 2023, NPRM was published 

on May 26, 2023. 88 FR 34100. 

The comment period closed on 

August 1, 2023. The Department 

received over 9,700 public comments in 

response to the NPRM. There were two 

large write-in campaigns, including one 

from a national parents’ rights 

organization, totaling more than 8,000 

comments opposing the proposed 

change. Of the remaining 1,700 

comments, in general, half (including 

major national membership 

organizations representing educators 

and service providers) were in support, 

and the other half (including major 

disability rights organizations and 

parent organizations) were in 

opposition. 

Withdrawal of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

After publication of the NPRM, the 

Department carefully considered the 

comments received. A number of 

commenters raised concerns about 

instances where students with 

disabilities were denied reimbursement 

for and access to Medicaid services 

provided outside of school as a result of 

the student’s school accessing the 

student’s public benefits for services 

provided in school. In light of these 

comments, the Department decided to 

focus our time and attention on 

providing technical assistance and 

working with Federal agencies, States 

and other partners to improve 

implementation of school-based 

Medicaid rather than engage in further 

rulemaking. 

As part of our technical assistance 

efforts, the Department engaged with 

stakeholders to better understand the 

existing implementation challenges for 

school-based Medicaid, and we also 

worked closely with the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services within 

the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services to address the barriers 

related to accessing Medicaid for 

services outside of school. However, at 

this time, and with the limited time and 

resources remaining during this 

administration, the Department has not 

been able to fully analyze and develop 

responsive ways to address the State 

and local policies and practices that 

may be contributing to barriers in 

accessing Medicaid reimbursement for 

services provided outside of school. 

For the above-stated independent 

reasons, the Department is withdrawing 

the NPRM published in the Federal 

Register at 88 FR 31659 on May 18, 

2023. Withdrawal of this NPRM does 

not preclude the Department from 

issuing rulemaking on this subject in the 

future or commit the Department to any 

future course of action. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

Department documents published in the 

Federal Register, in text or Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site. 

You may also access Department 

documents published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Miguel Cardona, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31187 Filed 12–23–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0930; FRL–10403– 

01–R4] 

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Second 

Planning Period Regional Haze Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

regional haze state implementation plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) on October 8, 2021, and 

supplemented on June 14, 2024, and 

October 28, 2024, as satisfying 

applicable requirements under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the 

program’s second planning period. 

Florida’s SIP submissions for the second 

planning period address the 

requirement that states must 

periodically revise their long-term 

strategies (LTSs) for making reasonable 

progress toward the national goal of 

preventing any future, and remedying 

any existing, anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility, including regional haze, in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas. These 

SIP submissions also address other 

applicable requirements for the second 

planning period of the regional haze 

program. EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of 

the Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 27, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2021–0930, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pearlene Williams-Miles, Multi-Air 

Pollutant Coordination Section, Air 

Planning and Implementation Branch, 

Air and Radiation Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. WilliamsMiles can be reached via telephone at 

(404) 562–9144 or electronic mail at 

williamsmiles.pearlene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. Background and Requirements for 

Regional Haze Plans 

A. Regional Haze Background 

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105507 

1The 2021 Plan includes a request to remove 

source-specific and Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) limits and conditions from the 

Florida SIP, which Florida provided to address 

BART and source-specific reasonable progress 

requirements during the first planning period. On 

June 14, 2024, FDEP withdrew this request. Thus, 

EPA will not act on this portion of Florida’s 2021 

Plan. FDEP’s request to withdraw the portion of the 

2021 plan that requests the removal of the first 

period planning period source specific and BART 

limits may be found the Materials to be Removed 

section of the 2024 Supplement. 

2 ‘‘Haze Plan’’ collectively refers to the October 8, 

2021, June 14, 2024, and October 28, 2024, SIP 

submissions. The phrase ‘‘2021 Plan’’ refers to the 

October 8, 2021, SIP submission; ‘‘2024 

Supplement’’ refers to the June 14, 2024, SIP 

submission which supplements the 2021 Plan; and 

‘‘Second 2024 Supplement’’ refers to the October 

28, 2024, SIP submission which also supplements 

the 2021 Plan. Each submission contains an 

administrative file which provides the specific 

permit conditions FDEP requests for incorporation 

into the Florida SIP under the Materials to be 

Incorporated into the SIP section. 

3Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class 

I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 

6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial 

parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 

parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 

CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. 

The list of areas to which the requirements of the 

visibility protection program apply is in 40 CFR 

part 81, subpart D. 

4 In addition to the generally applicable regional 

haze provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, EPA also 

promulgated regulations specific to addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment in Class I areas 

on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The 

latter regulations are applicable only for specific 

jurisdictions’ regional haze plans submitted no later 

than December 17, 2007, and thus are not relevant 

here. 

5There are several ways to measure the amount 

of visibility impairment, i.e., haze. One such 

measurement is the deciview, which is the 

principal metric defined and used by the RHR. 

Under many circumstances, a change in one 

deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be 

the same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview 

is unitless. It is proportional to the logarithm of the 

atmospheric extinction of light, which is the 

perceived dimming of light due to its being 

scattered and absorbed as it passes through the 

atmosphere. Atmospheric light extinction (bext) is 

a metric used for expressing visibility and is 

measured in inverse megameters (Mm¥1). EPA’s 

‘‘Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plans for the Second Implementation Period’’ 

(‘‘2019 Guidance’’) offers the flexibility for the use 

of light extinction in certain cases. Light extinction 

can be simpler to use in calculations than deciviews 

since it is not a logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019 

Guidance at 16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/ 

guidance-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-second-implementation-period, EPA Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for 

the deciview is 10 ln (bext)/10 Mm¥1). See 40 CFR 

51.301. 

6The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for 

states to submit plans addressing out-of-state Class 

I areas by providing that states must address 

visibility impairment ‘‘in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area located outside the State that may be 

affected by emissions from within the State.’’ See 

40 CFR 51.308(d), (f). 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for 

the Second Planning Period 

A. Identification of Class I Areas 

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and 

Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to 

Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress 

(URP) 

C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional 

Haze 

D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Toward the RPGs 

G. Requirements for State and Federal 

Land Manager (FLM) Coordination 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Florida’s Regional 

Haze Submissions for the Second 

Planning Period 

A. Identification of Class I Areas 

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and 

Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to 

Date; and the URP 

C. LTS for Regional Haze 

D. RPGs 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Regional 

Haze Plan Requirements 

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Toward the RPGs 

G. Requirements for State and FLM 

Coordination 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On October 8, 2021, and 

supplemented on June 14, 2024, and 

October 28, 2024, FDEP submitted 

revisions to its SIP to address regional 

haze for the second planning period. 

FDEP made these SIP submissions to 

satisfy the requirements of the CAA’s 

regional haze program pursuant to CAA 

sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 

51.308.1 EPA is proposing to find that 

the Florida regional haze SIP 

submissions for the second planning 

period (‘‘Haze Plan’’) meet the 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements, and thus, EPA also 

proposes to approve Florida’s 

submissions.2

II. Background and Requirements for 

Regional Haze Plans 

A. Regional Haze Background 

In the 1977 CAA Amendments, 

Congress created a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

mandatory Class I Federal areas, which 

include certain national parks and 

wilderness areas.3 See CAA 169A. The 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ See CAA 

169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs 

EPA to promulgate regulations to assure 

reasonable progress toward meeting this 

national goal. See CAA 169A(a)(4). On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘Class I areas’’) that is ‘‘reasonably 

attributable’’ to a single source or small 

group of sources. (45 FR 80084, 

December 2, 1980) These regulations, 

codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 

51.307, represented the first phase of 

EPA’s efforts to address visibility 

impairment. In 1990, Congress added 

section 169B to the CAA to further 

address visibility impairment, 

specifically, impairment from regional 

haze. See CAA 169B. EPA promulgated 

the RHR, codified at 40 CFR 51.308,4 on 

July 1, 1999. See 64 FR 35714, July 1, 

1999. These regional haze regulations 

are a central component of EPA’s 

comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

anthropogenic sources and activities 

which are located across a broad 

geographic area and that emit pollutants 

that impair visibility. Visibility 

impairing pollutants include fine and 

coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust) and 

their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in 

some cases, volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and ammonia (NH3)). Precursor 

pollutants react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter (particles 

less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

(mm) in diameter, PM2.5), which impairs 

visibility by scattering and absorbing 

light. Visibility impairment reduces the 

perception of clarity and color, as well 

as visible distance.5

To address regional haze visibility 

impairment, the 1999 RHR established 

an iterative planning process that 

requires both states in which Class I 

areas are located and states ‘‘the 

emissions from which may reasonably 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

any impairment of visibility’’ in a Class 

I area to periodically submit SIP 

revisions to address such impairment. 

See CAA 169A(b)(2); 6 see also 40 CFR 

51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission 

dates for iterative regional haze SIP 

revisions); 64 FR 35768, July 1, 1999. 

Under the CAA, each SIP submission 

must contain ‘‘a long-term (ten to fifteen 

years) strategy for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

goal,’’ CAA 169A(b)(2)(B); the initial 

round of SIP submissions also had to 

address the statutory requirement that 

certain older, larger sources of visibility 

impairing pollutants install and operate 

BART. CAA 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 

51.308(d), (e). States’ first regional haze 

SIPs were due by December 17, 2007, 40 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105508 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

7 In addition to each of the 50 states, EPA also 

concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of 

Columbia must also submit regional haze SIPs 

because they either contain a Class I area or contain 

sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated 

to contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 

CFR 51.300(b), (d)(3). 

8EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 

RHR to provide ‘‘an equitable analytical approach’’ 

to assess the rate of visibility improvement at Class 

I areas across the country. The start point for the 

URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was 

calculated based on the amount of visibility 

improvement that was anticipated to result from 

implementation of existing CAA programs over the 

period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. 

Assuming this rate of progress would continue into 

the future, EPA determined that natural visibility 

conditions would be reached in 60 years, or 2064 

(60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). 

However, EPA did not establish 2064 as the year 

by which the national goal must be reached. See 64 

FR 35731–32. That is, the URP and the 2064 date 

are not enforceable targets but are rather tools that 

‘‘allow for analytical comparisons between the rate 

of progress that would be achieved by the state’s 

chosen set of control measures and the URP.’’ See 

82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017. 

9EPA’s regulations define ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager’’ as ‘‘the Secretary of the department with 

authority over the Federal Class I area (or the 

Secretary’s designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the 

Roosevelt-Campobello International Park 

Commission.’’ See 40 CFR 51.301. 

10See footnote 4. 11 ‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period.’’ EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park 

(July 8, 2021). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/ 

documents/2021-07/clarifications-regardingregional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-thesecond-implementation-period.pdf. 12 ‘‘Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility 

Progress for the Second Implementation Period of 

the Regional Haze Program.’’ https://www.epa.gov/ 

visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibilityprogress-second-implementation-period-regional. 

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park (December 20, 2018). 

CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP 

submissions containing updated LTS 

originally due July 31, 2018, and every 

ten years thereafter. See 64 FR 35768, 

July 1, 1999. EPA established in the 

1999 RHR that all states either have 

Class I areas within their borders or 

‘‘contain sources whose emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

regional haze in a Class I area’’; 

therefore, all states must submit regional 

haze SIPs.7 Id. at 35721. 

Much of the focus in the first 

planning period of the regional haze 

program, which ran from 2007 through 

2018, was on satisfying states’ BART 

obligations. First planning period SIPs 

were additionally required to contain 

LTSs for making reasonable progress 

toward the national visibility goal, of 

which BART is one component. The 

core required elements for the first 

planning period SIPs (other than BART) 

are laid out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those 

provisions require that states containing 

Class I areas establish RPGs that are 

measured in deciviews and reflect the 

anticipated visibility conditions at the 

end of the period including from 

implementation of states’ LTSs. The first 

planning period RPGs were required to 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

period of the implementation plan and 

ensure no degradation in visibility for 

the least impaired days over the same 

period. In establishing the RPGs for any 

Class I area in a state, the state was 

required to consider four statutory 

factors (also referenced herein as ‘‘the 

four factors’’): the costs of compliance, 

the time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. See CAA 

169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

States were also required to calculate 

baseline (using the five-year period of 

2000–2004) and natural visibility 

conditions (i.e., visibility conditions 

without anthropogenic visibility 

impairment) for each Class I area, and 

to calculate the linear rate of progress 

needed to attain natural visibility 

conditions, assuming a starting point of 

baseline visibility conditions in 2004 

and ending with natural conditions in 

2064. This linear interpolation is known 

as the uniform rate of progress (URP) 

and is used as a tracking metric to help 

states assess the amount of progress they 

are making toward the national 

visibility goal over time in each Class I 

area.8 See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), 

(d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that 

states’ LTSs must include the 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance, schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals.’’ See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). In establishing their LTSs, 

states are required to consult with other 

states that also contribute to visibility 

impairment in a given Class I area and 

include all measures necessary to obtain 

their shares of the emission reductions 

needed to meet the RPGs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). Section 51.308(d) 

also contains seven additional factors 

states must consider in formulating their 

LTSs, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as 

provisions governing monitoring and 

other implementation plan 

requirements. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). 

Finally, the 1999 RHR required states to 

submit periodic progress reports—SIP 

revisions due every five years that 

contain information on states’ 

implementation of their regional haze 

plans and an assessment of whether 

anything additional is needed to make 

reasonable progress, see 40 CFR 

51.308(g), (h)—and to consult with the 

FLMs 9 responsible for each Class I area 

according to the requirements in CAA 

169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

On January 10, 2017, EPA 

promulgated revisions to the RHR (82 

FR 3078) that apply for the second and 

subsequent planning periods. The 2017 

rulemaking made several changes to the 

requirements for regional haze SIPs to 

clarify states’ obligations and streamline 

certain regional haze requirements. The 

revisions to the regional haze program 

for the second and subsequent planning 

periods focused on the requirement that 

states’ SIPs contain LTSs for making 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal. The reasonable progress 

requirements as revised in the 2017 

rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 

RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR 

51.308(f). Among other changes, the 

2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the 

deadline for states to submit their 

second planning period SIPs from July 

31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, clarified the 

order of analysis and the relationship 

between RPGs and the LTSs, and 

focused on making visibility 

improvements on the days with the 

most anthropogenic visibility 

impairment, as opposed to the days 

with the most visibility impairment 

overall. EPA also revised requirements 

of the visibility protection program 

related to periodic progress reports and 

FLM consultation. The specific 

requirements applicable to second 

planning period regional haze SIP 

submissions are addressed in detail 

below. 

EPA provided guidance to the states 

for their second planning period SIP 

submissions in the preamble to the 2017 

RHR Revisions as well as in subsequent 

stand-alone guidance documents. In 

August 2019, EPA issued its 2019 

Guidance.10 On July 8, 2021, EPA issued 

a memorandum containing 

‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plans for the 

Second Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2021 

Clarifications Memo’’).11 Additionally, 

EPA further clarified the recommended 

procedures for processing ambient 

visibility data and optionally adjusting 

the URP to account for international 

anthropogenic and prescribed fire 

impacts in two technical guidance 

documents: the December 2018 

‘‘Technical Guidance on Tracking 

Visibility Progress for the Second 

Implementation Period of the Regional 

Haze Program’’ (‘‘2018 Visibility 

Tracking Guidance’’),12 and the June 

2020 ‘‘Recommendation for the Use of 

Patched and Substituted Data and 

Clarification of Data Completeness for 

Tracking Visibility Progress for the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105509 

13 ‘‘Recommendation for the Use of Patched and 

Substituted Data and Clarification of Data 

Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for 

the Second Implementation Period of the Regional 

Haze Program.’’ https://www.epa.gov/visibility/ 

memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-datausage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program. 

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park (June 3, 2020). 

14See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95–294 at 205 (‘‘In 

determining how to best remedy the growing 

visibility problem in these areas of great scenic 

importance, the committee realizes that as a matter 

of equity, the national ambient air quality standards 

cannot be revised to adequately protect visibility in 

all areas of the country.’’) (‘‘the mandatory class I 

increments of [the PSD program] do not adequately 

protect visibility in class I areas’’). 

15RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ‘‘multijurisdictional organizations,’’ or MJOs. For the 

purposes of this document, the terms RPO and MJO 

are synonymous. 

16The VISTAS technical work under SESARM is 

described at this website: https://www.metro4- 

sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program. 

17Metro 4 is a Tennessee corporation which 

represents the local air pollution control agencies 

in EPA’s Region 4 in the Southeast. See https://

www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/metro-4-about-us. 

18The NPS, FWS, and USFS are collectively 

referred to as the ‘‘Federal Land Managers’’ or 

‘‘FLMs’’ throughout this document. 

19EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that 

the Agency was adopting new regulatory language 

in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike the structure in 

§ 51.308(d), ‘‘tracked the actual planning 

sequence.’’ See 82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017. 

20The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration 

in § 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors 

listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply 

to sources in determining reasonable progress. 

Second Implementation Period of the 

Regional Haze Program’’ and associated 

Technical Addendum (‘‘2020 Data 

Completeness Memo’’).13

As explained in the 2021 

Clarifications Memo, EPA intends the 

second planning period of the regional 

haze program to secure meaningful 

reductions in visibility impairing 

pollutants that build on the significant 

progress states have achieved to date. 

The Agency also recognizes that 

analyses regarding reasonable progress 

are state-specific and that, based on 

states’ and sources’ individual 

circumstances, what constitutes 

reasonable reductions in visibility 

impairing pollutants will vary from state 

to state. While there exist many 

opportunities for states to leverage both 

ongoing and upcoming emission 

reductions under other CAA programs, 

the Agency expects states to undertake 

rigorous reasonable progress analyses 

that identify further opportunities to 

advance the national visibility goal 

consistent with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements. See, generally, 

2021 Clarifications Memo. This is 

consistent with Congress’s 

determination that a visibility 

protection program is needed in 

addition to the CAA’s National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) programs, as further emission 

reductions may be necessary to 

adequately protect visibility in Class I 

areas throughout the country.14

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Because the air pollutants affecting 

visibility in Class I areas can be 

transported over long distances, 

successful implementation of the 

regional haze program requires longterm, regional coordination among 

multiple jurisdictions and agencies that 

have responsibility for Class I areas and 

the emissions that impact visibility in 

those areas. In order to address regional 

haze, states need to develop strategies in 

coordination with one another, 

considering the effect of emissions from 

one jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. Five regional planning 

organizations (RPOs),15 which include 

representation from state and tribal 

governments, EPA, and FLMs, were 

developed in the lead-up to the first 

planning period to address regional 

haze. RPOs evaluate technical 

information to better understand how 

emissions from state and tribal land 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

pursue the development of regional 

strategies to reduce emissions of PM and 

other pollutants leading to regional 

haze, and help states meet the 

consultation requirements of the RHR. 

The Southeastern States Air Resource 

Managers, Inc. (SESARM), one of the 

five RPOs described above, is a 

collaborative effort of state and local 

agencies and tribal governments 

established to initiate and coordinate 

activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility, 

and other air quality issues in the 

Southeast. SESARM’s coalition to 

conduct regional haze work is referred 

to as Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS).16 Member states, local air 

agencies, and tribal governments of 

VISTAS are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 

and West Virginia; the local air 

agencies, represented by the President 

of Metro 4 or designee; 17 and the Tribes 

located within the VISTAS region, 

represented by the Eastern Band of the 

Cherokee Indians. The Federal partner 

members of VISTAS are EPA, U.S. 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS).18

III. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Plans for the Second Planning Period 

Under the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations, all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

are required to submit regional haze 

SIPs satisfying the applicable 

requirements for the second planning 

period of the regional haze program by 

July 31, 2021. Each state’s SIP must 

contain a LTS for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

goal of remedying any existing and 

preventing any future anthropogenic 

visibility impairment in Class I areas. 

See CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 

CFR 51.308(f) lays out the process by 

which states determine what constitutes 

their LTSs, with the order of the 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) 

through (3) generally mirroring the 

order of the steps in the reasonable 

progress analysis 19 and (f)(4) through 

(6) containing additional related 

requirements. 

Broadly speaking, a state first must 

identify the Class I areas within the state 

and determine the Class I areas outside 

the state in which visibility may be 

affected by emissions from the state. 

These are the Class I areas that must be 

addressed in the state’s LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(f) introductory text, (f)(2). For 

each Class I area within its borders, a 

state must then calculate the baseline, 

current, and natural visibility 

conditions for that area, as well as the 

visibility improvement made to date 

and the URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). 

Each state having a Class I area and/or 

emissions that may affect visibility in a 

Class I area must then develop a LTS 

that includes the enforceable emission 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress in such areas. 

A reasonable progress determination is 

based on applying the four factors in 

CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of 

visibility impairing pollutants that the 

state has selected to assess for controls 

for the second planning period. 

Additionally, as further explained 

below, the RHR at 40 CFR 

51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five 

‘‘additional factors’’ 20 that states must 

consider in developing their long-term 

strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A 

state evaluates potential emission 

reduction measures for those selected 

sources and determines which are 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

Those measures are then incorporated 

into the state’s LTS. After a state has 

developed its LTS, it then establishes 

RPGs for each Class I area within its 

borders by modeling the visibility 

impacts of all reasonable progress 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105510 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

21The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance 

references and relies on parts of the 2003 Tracking 

Guidance: ‘‘Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule’’ which can be found at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/ 

documents/tracking.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park 

(September 2003). 

22The ‘‘deciview index’’ means a value for a day 

that is derived from calculated or measured light 

extinction, such that uniform increments of the 

index correspond to uniform incremental changes 

in perception across the entire range of conditions, 

from pristine to very obscured. The deciview index 

is calculated using Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) aerosol 

measurements. See 40 CFR 51.301. 

23This notice also refers to the 20 percent clearest 

and 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired 

days as the ‘‘clearest’’ and ‘‘most impaired’’ or 

‘‘most anthropogenically impaired’’ days, 

respectively. 

24The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an 

error related to the requirement for calculating two 

sets of natural conditions values. The rule says, 

‘‘most impaired days or the clearest days’’ where it 

should say ‘‘most impaired days and clearest days.’’ 

This is an error that was intended to be corrected 

in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected 

in the final rule language. This is supported by the 

preamble text at 82 FR 3098: ‘‘In the final version 

of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of ‘or’ has 

been corrected to ‘and’ to indicate that natural 

visibility conditions for both the most impaired 

days and the clearest days must be based on 

available monitoring information.’’ 

25Being on or below the URP is not a ‘‘safe 

harbor’’; i.e., achieving the URP does not mean that 

controls at the end of the second 

planning period, i.e., in 2028, as well as 

the impacts of other requirements of the 

CAA. The RPGs include reasonable 

progress controls not only for sources in 

the state in which the Class I area is 

located, but also for sources in other 

states that contribute to visibility 

impairment in that area. The RPGs are 

then compared to the baseline visibility 

conditions and the URP to ensure that 

progress is being made toward the 

statutory goal of preventing any future 

and remedying any existing 

anthropogenic visibility impairment in 

Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) 

and (3). 

In addition to satisfying the 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) related 

to reasonable progress, the regional haze 

SIP revisions for the second planning 

period must address the requirements in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5) 

pertaining to periodic reports describing 

progress toward the RPGs, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements for 

FLM consultation that apply to all 

visibility protection SIPs and SIP 

revisions. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

A state must submit its regional haze 

SIP and subsequent SIP revisions to 

EPA according to the requirements 

applicable to all SIP revisions under the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations. See CAA 

169A(b)(2); CAA 110(a). Upon EPA 

approval, a SIP is enforceable by the 

Agency and the public under the CAA. 

If EPA finds that a state fails to make a 

required SIP revision, or if EPA finds 

that a state’s SIP is incomplete or if 

disapproves the SIP, the Agency must 

promulgate a Federal implementation 

plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable 

requirements. See CAA 110(c)(1). 

A. Identification of Class I Areas 

The first step in developing a regional 

haze SIP is for a state to determine 

which Class I areas, in addition to those 

within its borders, ‘‘may be affected’’ by 

emissions from within the state. In the 

1999 RHR, EPA determined that all 

states contribute to visibility 

impairment in at least one Class I area, 

64 FR 35720–22, and explained that the 

statute and regulations lay out an 

‘‘extremely low triggering threshold’’ for 

determining ‘‘whether States should be 

required to engage in air quality 

planning and analysis as a prerequisite 

to determining the need for control of 

emissions from sources within their 

State.’’ Id. at 35721. 

A state must determine which Class I 

areas must be addressed by its SIP by 

evaluating the total emissions of 

visibility impairing pollutants from all 

sources within the state. While the RHR 

does not require this evaluation to be 

conducted in any particular manner, 

EPA’s 2019 Guidance provides 

recommendations for how such an 

assessment might be accomplished, 

including by, where appropriate, using 

the determinations previously made for 

the first planning period. See 2019 

Guidance at 8–9. In addition, the 

determination of which Class I areas 

may be affected by a state’s emissions is 

subject to the requirement in 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ‘‘document the 

technical basis, including modeling, 

monitoring, cost, engineering, and 

emissions information, on which the 

State is relying to determine the 

emission reduction measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

in each mandatory Class I Federal area 

it affects.’’ 

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, 

and Natural Visibility Conditions; 

Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate 

of Progress (URP) 

As part of assessing whether a SIP 

submission for the second planning 

period is providing for reasonable 

progress toward the national visibility 

goal, the RHR contains requirements in 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to tracking 

visibility improvement over time. The 

requirements of this subsection apply 

only to states having Class I areas within 

their borders; the required calculations 

must be made for each such Class I area. 

EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking 

Guidance 21 provides recommendations 

to assist states in satisfying their 

obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1); 

specifically, in developing information 

on baseline, current, and natural 

visibility conditions, and in making 

optional adjustments to the URP to 

account for the impacts of international 

anthropogenic emissions and prescribed 

fires. See 82 FR 3103–05. 

The RHR requires tracking of 

visibility conditions on two sets of days: 

the clearest and the most impaired days. 

Visibility conditions for both sets of 

days are expressed as the average 

deciview index for the relevant five-year 

period (the period representing baseline 

or current visibility conditions).22 The 

RHR provides that the relevant sets of 

days for visibility tracking purposes are 

the 20 percent clearest days (the 20 

percent of monitored days in a calendar 

year with the lowest values of the 

deciview index) and 20 percent most 

impaired days (the 20 percent of 

monitored days in a calendar year with 

the highest amounts of anthropogenic 

visibility impairment).23 See 40 CFR 

51.301. A state must calculate visibility 

conditions for both the 20 percent 

clearest days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for the baseline period of 

2000–2004 and the most recent five-year 

period for which visibility monitoring 

data are available (representing current 

visibility conditions). See 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must also 

calculate natural visibility conditions 

for the clearest and most impaired 

days 24 by estimating the conditions that 

would exist on those two sets of days 

absent anthropogenic visibility 

impairment. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). 

Using all these data, states must then 

calculate, for each Class I area, the 

amount of progress made since the 

baseline period (2000–2004) and how 

much improvement is left to achieve in 

order to reach natural visibility 

conditions. 

Using the data for the set of most 

impaired days only, states must plot a 

line between visibility conditions in the 

baseline period and natural visibility 

conditions for each Class I area to 

determine the URP—the amount of 

visibility improvement, measured in 

deciviews, that would need to be 

achieved during each planning period 

in order to achieve natural visibility 

conditions by the end of 2064. The URP 

is used in later steps of the reasonable 

progress analysis for informational 

purposes and to provide a nonenforceable benchmark against which to 

assess a Class I area’s rate of visibility 

improvement.25 Additionally, in the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105511 

a Class I area is making ‘‘reasonable progress’’ and 

does not relieve a state from using the four statutory 

factors to determine what level of control is needed 

to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR 3093. 

26Similarly, in responding to comments on the 

2017 RHR Revisions EPA explained that ‘‘[a] state 

should not fail to address its many relatively lowimpact sources merely because it only has such 

sources and another state has even more low-impact 

sources and/or some high impact sources.’’ 

Responses to Comments on Protection of Visibility: 

Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; 

Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016). 

(December 2016), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2015–0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

at 87–88, available at www.regulations.gov. 

27The CAA provides that, ‘‘[i]n determining 

reasonable progress there shall be taken into 

consideration’’ the four statutory factors. See CAA 

169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-factor 

analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or 

source categories, a state may also consider 

additional emission reduction measures for 

inclusion in its LTS, e.g., from other newly adopted, 

on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for 

sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the 

second planning period. 

28 ‘‘Each source’’ or ‘‘particular source’’ is used 

here as shorthand. While a source-specific analysis 

Continued 

2017 RHR Revisions, EPA provided 

states the option of proposing to adjust 

the endpoint of the URP to account for 

impacts of anthropogenic sources 

outside the United States and/or 

impacts of certain types of wildland 

prescribed fires. These adjustments, 

which must be approved by EPA, are 

intended to avoid any perception that 

states should compensate for impacts 

from international anthropogenic 

sources and to give states the flexibility 

to determine that limiting the use of 

wildland prescribed fire is not necessary 

for reasonable progress. See 82 FR 3107, 

footnote 116. 

EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking 

Guidance can be used to help satisfy the 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, 

including in developing information on 

baseline, current, and natural visibility 

conditions, and in making optional 

adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 

2020 Data Completeness Memo provides 

recommendations on the data 

completeness language referenced in 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides 

updated natural conditions estimates for 

each Class I area. 

C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for 

Regional Haze 

The core component of a regional 

haze SIP submission is a LTS that 

addresses regional haze in each Class I 

area within a state’s borders and each 

Class I area that may be affected by 

emissions from the state. The LTS 

‘‘must include the enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress, 

as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) 

through (iv).’’ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

The amount of progress that is 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ is based on 

applying the four statutory factors in 

CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation 

of potential control options for sources 

of visibility impairing pollutants, which 

is referred to as a ‘‘four-factor’’ analysis 

(FFA). The outcome of that analysis is 

the emission reduction measures that a 

particular source or group of sources 

needs to implement in order to make 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal. See 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission reduction 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress may be either new, 

additional control measures for a source 

or the existing emission reduction 

measures that a source is already 

implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 

2021 Clarifications Memo at 8–10. Such 

measures must be represented by 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures’’ in a state’s LTS in its SIP. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the 

requirements for the FFA. The first step 

of this analysis entails selecting the 

sources to be evaluated for emission 

reduction measures; to this end, the 

RHR requires states to consider ‘‘major 

and minor stationary sources or groups 

of sources, mobile sources, and area 

sources’’ of visibility impairing 

pollutants for potential control analysis 

(i.e., FFA). See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A 

threshold question at this step is which 

visibility impairing pollutants will be 

analyzed. As EPA previously explained, 

consistent with the first planning 

period, EPA generally expects that each 

state will analyze at least SO2 and NOX

in selecting sources and determining 

control measures. See 2019 Guidance at 

12 and 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. 

A state that chooses not to consider at 

least these two pollutants should 

demonstrate why such consideration 

would be unreasonable. See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 4. 

While states have the option to 

analyze all sources, the 2019 Guidance 

explains that ‘‘an analysis of control 

measures is not required for every 

source in each implementation period,’’ 

and that ‘‘[s]electing a set of sources for 

analysis of control measures in each 

implementation period is consistent 

with the Regional Haze Rule, which sets 

up an iterative planning process and 

anticipates that a state may not need to 

analyze control measures for all its 

sources in a given SIP revision.’’ See 

2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that 

source selection is the basis of all 

subsequent control determinations, a 

reasonable source selection process 

‘‘should be designed and conducted to 

ensure that source selection results in a 

set of pollutants and sources the 

evaluation of which has the potential to 

meaningfully reduce their contributions 

to visibility impairment.’’ See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 3. 

EPA explained in the 2021 

Clarifications Memo that each state has 

an obligation to submit a LTS that 

addresses the regional haze visibility 

impairment that results from emissions 

from within that state. Thus, source 

selection should focus on the in-state 

contribution to visibility impairment 

and be designed to capture a meaningful 

portion of the state’s total contribution 

to visibility impairment in Class I areas. 

A state should not decline to select its 

largest in-state sources on the basis that 

there are even larger out-of-state 

contributors. See 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 4.26

Thus, while states have discretion to 

choose any source selection 

methodology that is reasonable, 

whatever choices they make should be 

reasonably explained. To this end, 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a state’s 

SIP submission include ‘‘a description 

of the criteria it used to determine 

which sources or groups of sources it 

evaluated.’’ The technical basis for 

source selection, which may include 

methods for quantifying potential 

visibility impacts such as emissions 

divided by distance metrics, trajectory 

analyses, residence time analyses, and/ 

or photochemical modeling, must also 

be appropriately documented, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

Once a state has selected the set of 

sources, the next step is to determine 

the emissions reduction measures for 

those sources that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress for the second 

planning period.27 This is accomplished 

by considering the four factors—‘‘the 

costs of compliance, the time necessary 

for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, and the remaining useful 

life of any existing source subject to 

such requirements.’’ See CAA 

169A(g)(1). EPA has explained that the 

FFA is an assessment of potential 

emission reduction measures (i.e., 

control options) for sources; ‘‘use of the 

terms ‘compliance’ and ‘subject to such 

requirements’ in section 169A(g)(1) 

strongly indicates that Congress 

intended the relevant determination to 

be the requirements with which sources 

would have to comply in order to satisfy 

the CAA’s reasonable progress 

mandate.’’ See 82 FR 3091. Thus, for 

each source a state has selected for an 

FFA,28 it must consider a ‘‘meaningful 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105512 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

is one way of applying the four factors, neither the 

statute nor the RHR requires states to evaluate 

individual sources. Rather, states have ‘‘the 

flexibility to conduct four-factor analyses for 

specific sources, groups of sources or even entire 

source categories, depending on state policy 

preferences and the specific circumstances of each 

state.’’ See 82 FR 3088. However, not all approaches 

to grouping sources for four-factor analysis are 

necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of 

grouping sources in any particular instance will 

depend on the circumstances and the manner in 

which grouping is conducted. If it is feasible to 

establish and enforce different requirements for 

sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant 

factors can be quantified for those sources or 

subgroups, then states should make a separate 

reasonable progress determination for each source 

or subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7–8. 

29See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection 

of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for 

State Plans; Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 

2016), (December 2016), Docket Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0531, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36–37. 

30States may choose to, but are not required to, 

include measures in their long-term strategies 

beyond just the emission reduction measures that 

are necessary for reasonable progress. See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with 

smoke management programs may choose to submit 

their SMP to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are 

not required to do so. See, e.g., 82 FR 3108–09 

(requirement to consider smoke management 

practices and smoke management programs under 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to 

adopt such practices or programs into their SIPs, 

although they may elect to do so). 

set’’ of technically feasible control 

options for reducing emissions of 

visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 

3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that 

‘‘[a] state must reasonably pick and 

justify the measures that it will 

consider, recognizing that there is no 

statutory or regulatory requirement to 

consider all technically feasible 

measures or any particular measures. A 

range of technically feasible measures 

available to reduce emissions would be 

one way to justify a reasonable set.’’ See 

2019 Guidance at 29. 

EPA’s 2021 Clarifications Memo 

provides further guidance on what 

constitutes a reasonable set of control 

options for consideration: ‘‘A reasonable 

four-factor analysis will consider the 

full range of potentially reasonable 

options for reducing emissions.’’ See 

2021 Clarifications Memo at 7. In 

addition to add-on controls and other 

retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction 

measures for sources), EPA explained 

that states should generally analyze 

efficiency improvements for sources’ 

existing measures as control options in 

their FFAs, as in many cases such 

improvements are reasonable given that 

they typically involve only additional 

operation and maintenance costs. 

Additionally, the 2021 Clarifications 

Memo provides that states that have 

assumed a higher emission rate than a 

source has achieved or could potentially 

achieve using its existing measures 

should also consider lower emission 

rates as potential control options. That 

is, a state should consider a source’s 

recent actual and projected emission 

rates to determine if it could reasonably 

attain lower emission rates with its 

existing measures. If so, the state should 

analyze the lower emission rate as a 

control option for reducing emissions. 

See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7. 

EPA’s recommendations to analyze 

potential efficiency improvements and 

achievable lower emission rates apply to 

both sources that have been selected for 

FFA and those that have forgone an FFA 

on the basis of existing ‘‘effective 

controls.’’ See 2021 Clarifications Memo 

at 5, 10. 

After identifying a reasonable set of 

potential control options for the sources 

it has selected, a state then collects 

information on the four factors with 

regard to each option identified. EPA 

has also explained that, in addition to 

the four statutory factors, states have 

flexibility under the CAA and RHR to 

reasonably consider visibility benefits as 

an additional factor alongside the four 

statutory factors.29 The 2019 Guidance 

provides recommendations for the types 

of information that can be used to 

characterize the four factors (with or 

without visibility), as well as ways in 

which states might reasonably consider 

and balance that information to 

determine which of the potential control 

options is necessary to make reasonable 

progress. See 2019 Guidance at 30–36. 

The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains 

further guidance on how states can 

reasonably consider modeled visibility 

impacts or benefits in the context of an 

FFA. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 

12–13, 14–15. Specifically, EPA 

explained that while visibility can 

reasonably be used when comparing 

and choosing between multiple 

reasonable control options, it should not 

be used to summarily reject controls 

that are reasonable given the four 

statutory factors. See 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 13. Ultimately, while states 

have discretion to reasonably weigh the 

factors and to determine what level of 

control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) 

provides that a state ‘‘must include in 

its implementation plan a description of 

how the four factors were taken into 

consideration in selecting the measure 

for inclusion in its long-term strategy.’’ 

As explained above, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to 

determine the emission reduction 

measures for sources that are necessary 

to make reasonable progress by 

considering the four factors. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

toward the national visibility goal must 

be included in a state’s LTS and in its 

SIP.30 If the outcome of an FFA is a 

new, additional emission reduction 

measure for a source, that new measure 

is necessary to make reasonable progress 

toward remedying existing 

anthropogenic visibility impairment and 

must be included in the SIP. If the 

outcome of an FFA is that no new 

measures are reasonable for a source, 

continued implementation of the 

source’s existing measures is generally 

necessary to prevent future emission 

increases and thus to make reasonable 

progress toward the second part of the 

national visibility goal: preventing 

future anthropogenic visibility 

impairment. See CAA 169A(a)(1). That 

is, when the result of an FFA is that no 

new measures are necessary to make 

reasonable progress, the source’s 

existing measures are generally 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

and must be included in the SIP. 

However, there may be circumstances in 

which a state can demonstrate that a 

source’s existing measures are not 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

Specifically, if a state can demonstrate 

that a source will continue to 

implement its existing measures and 

will not increase its emission rate, it 

may not be necessary to have those 

measures in the LTS in order to prevent 

future emission increases and future 

visibility impairment. EPA’s 2021 

Clarifications Memo provides further 

explanation and guidance on how states 

may demonstrate that a source’s existing 

measures are not necessary to make 

reasonable progress. See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 8–10. If the state 

can make such a demonstration, it need 

not include a source’s existing measures 

in the LTS or its SIP. 

As with source selection, the 

characterization of information on each 

of the factors is also subject to the 

documentation requirement in 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress 

analysis, including source selection, 

information gathering, characterization 

of the four statutory factors (and 

potentially visibility), balancing of the 

four factors, and selection of the 

emission reduction measures that 

represent reasonable progress, is a 

technically complex exercise, but also a 

flexible one that provides states with 

bounded discretion to design and 

implement approaches appropriate to 

their circumstances. Given this 

flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays 

an important function in requiring a 

state to document the technical basis for 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105513 

31See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 

F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 

812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir. 2016); North Dakota v. 

EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013); Oklahoma 

v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208–10 (10th Cir. 

2013); cf. also Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. 

EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep’t 

of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485, 

490 (2004). 

32The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration 

in § 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors 

listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply 

to sources in determining reasonable progress. 

33RPGs are intended to reflect the projected 

impacts of the measures all contributing states 

include in their long-term strategies. However, due 

to the timing of analyses and of control 

determinations by other states, other on-going 

emissions changes, a particular state’s RPGs may 

not reflect all control measures and emissions 

reductions that are expected to occur by the end of 

the planning period. The 2019 Guidance provides 

recommendations for addressing the timing of RPG 

calculations when states are developing their longterm strategies on disparate schedules, as well as for 

adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. 

See 2019 Guidance at 47–48. 

34The 2019 Guidance allows for the possibility of 

post-modeling adjustments to the RPGs to account 

for the fact that final LTS decisions for the State or 

for other States may not be known until late in the 

process, or even after SIPs are submitted. See 2019 

Guidance at 46–48. See also, 82 FR 3078, 3080 

(January 10, 2017). 

its decision making so that the public 

and EPA can comprehend and evaluate 

the information and analysis the state 

relied upon to determine what emission 

reduction measures must be in place to 

make reasonable progress. The technical 

documentation must include the 

modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, 

and emissions information on which the 

state relied to determine the measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

This documentation requirement can be 

met through the provision of and 

reliance on technical analyses 

developed through a regional planning 

process, so long as that process and its 

output has been approved by all state 

participants. In addition to the explicit 

regulatory requirement to document the 

technical basis of their reasonable 

progress determinations, states are also 

subject to the general principle that 

those determinations must be 

reasonably moored to the statute.31 That 

is, a state’s decisions about the emission 

reduction measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress must be 

consistent with the statutory goal of 

remedying existing and preventing 

future visibility impairment. 

The four statutory factors (and 

potentially visibility) are used to 

determine what emission reduction 

measures for selected sources must be 

included in a state’s LTS for making 

reasonable progress. Additionally, the 

RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) 

separately provides five ‘‘additional 

factors’’ 32 that states must consider in 

developing their LTSs: (1) emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment (RAVI); (2) measures to 

reduce the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke 

management practices for prescribed 

fire used for agricultural and wildland 

vegetation management purposes and 

smoke management programs; and (5) 

the anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area, 

and mobile source emissions over the 

period addressed by the LTS. The 2019 

Guidance provides that a state may 

satisfy this requirement by considering 

these additional factors in the process of 

selecting sources for an FFA, when 

performing that analysis, or both, and 

that not every one of the additional 

factors needs to be considered at the 

same stage of the process. See 2019 

Guidance at 21. EPA provided further 

guidance on the five additional factors 

in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, 

explaining that a state should generally 

not reject cost-effective and otherwise 

reasonable controls merely because 

there have been emission reductions 

since the first planning period owing to 

other ongoing air pollution control 

programs or merely because visibility is 

otherwise projected to improve at Class 

I areas. Additionally, states generally 

should not rely on these additional 

factors to summarily assert that the state 

has already made sufficient progress 

and, therefore, no sources need to be 

selected or no new controls are needed 

regardless of the outcome of FFAs. See 

2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. 

Because the air pollution that causes 

regional haze crosses state boundaries, 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to 

consult with other states that also have 

emissions that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in a given Class I area. 

Consultation allows for each state that 

impacts visibility in an area to share 

whatever technical information, 

analyses, and control determinations 

may be necessary to develop 

coordinated emission management 

strategies. This coordination may be 

managed through inter- and intra-RPO 

consultation and the development of 

regional emissions strategies; additional 

consultations between states outside of 

RPO processes may also occur. If a state, 

pursuant to consultation, agrees that 

certain measures (e.g., a certain 

emission limitation) are necessary to 

make reasonable progress at a Class I 

area, it must include those measures in 

its SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). 

Additionally, the RHR requires that 

states that contribute to visibility 

impairment at the same Class I area 

consider the emission reduction 

measures the other contributing states 

have identified as being necessary to 

make reasonable progress for their own 

sources. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If 

a state has been asked to consider or 

adopt certain emission reduction 

measures, but ultimately determines 

those measures are not necessary to 

make reasonable progress, that state 

must document in its SIP the actions 

taken to resolve the disagreement. See 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). EPA will 

consider the technical information and 

explanations presented by the 

submitting state and the state with 

which it disagrees when considering 

whether to approve the state’s SIP. See 

id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all 

circumstances, a state must document in 

its SIP submission all substantive 

consultations with other contributing 

states. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). 

D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

RPGs ‘‘measure the progress that is 

projected to be achieved by the control 

measures states have determined are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

based on a four-factor analysis.’’ See 82 

FR 3091. Their primary purpose is to 

assist the public and EPA in assessing 

the reasonableness of states’ LTSs for 

making reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv). States in which 

Class I areas are located must establish 

two RPGs—one representing visibility 

conditions on the clearest days and one 

representing visibility on the most 

anthropogenically impaired days—for 

each area within their borders. See 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two RPGs, 

measured in deciviews, are intended to 

reflect the projected impacts, on each 

set of days, of the emission reduction 

measures the state with the Class I area 

and other contributing states have 

included in their LTSs for the second 

planning period.33 The RPGs also 

account for the projected impacts of 

implementing other CAA requirements, 

including non-SIP based requirements. 

Because RPGs are the modeled result of 

the measures in states’ LTSs (as well as 

other measures required under the 

CAA), they cannot be determined before 

states have conducted their FFAs and 

determined the control measures that 

are necessary to make reasonable 

progress.34 See 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 6. 

For the second planning period, the 

RPGs are set for 2028. RPGs are not 

enforceable targets, 40 CFR 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105514 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

35 In lieu of conducting an FFA, states may elect 

to show the source has existing effective controls 

for the particular pollutants under evaluation or 

that the source is shutting down by the end of the 

planning period (or close to it). 

36See ‘‘Step 8: Additional requirements for 

regional haze SIPs’’ in 2019 Guidance at 55. 

37 Id. 

38EPA’s visibility protection regulations define 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility impairment’’ as 

‘‘visibility impairment that is caused by the 

emission of air pollutants from one, or a small 

number of sources.’’ See 40 CFR 51.301. 

51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ‘‘provide a 

way for the states to check the projected 

outcome of the [long-term strategy] 

against the goals for visibility 

improvement.’’ See 2019 Guidance at 

46. While states are not legally obligated 

to achieve the visibility conditions 

described in their RPGs, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ‘‘[t]he longterm strategy and the reasonable 

progress goals must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days since the baseline period 

and ensure no degradation in visibility 

for the clearest days since the baseline 

period.’’ Thus, states are required to 

have emission reduction measures in 

their LTSs that are projected to achieve 

visibility conditions on the most 

impaired days that are better than the 

baseline period and shows no 

degradation on the clearest days 

compared to the clearest days from the 

baseline period. The baseline period for 

the purpose of this comparison is the 

baseline visibility condition—the 

annual average visibility condition for 

the period 2000–2004. See 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR 3097–98. 

So that RPGs may also serve as a 

metric for assessing the amount of 

progress a state is making toward the 

national visibility goal, the RHR 

requires states with Class I areas to 

compare the 2028 RPG for the most 

impaired days to the corresponding 

point on the URP line (representing 

visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility 

were to improve at a linear rate from 

conditions in the baseline period of 

2000–2004 to natural visibility 

conditions in 2064). If the most 

impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the 

URP (i.e., if visibility conditions are 

improving more slowly than the rate 

described by the URP), each state that 

contributes to visibility impairment in 

the Class I area must demonstrate, based 

on the FFA required under 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional 

emission reduction measures would be 

reasonable to include in its LTS. See 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires that each state 

contributing to visibility impairment in 

a Class I area that is projected to 

improve more slowly than the URP 

provide ‘‘a robust demonstration, 

including documenting the criteria used 

to determine which sources or groups 

[of] sources were evaluated and how the 

four factors required by paragraph 

(f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in 

selecting the measures for inclusion in 

its long-term strategy.’’ The 2019 

Guidance provides suggestions about 

how such a ‘‘robust demonstration’’ 

might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance 

at 50–51. 

The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 

2021 Clarifications Memo also explain 

that projecting an RPG that is on or 

below the URP based on only on-thebooks and/or on-the-way control 

measures (i.e., control measures already 

required or anticipated before the FFA 

is conducted) is not a ‘‘safe harbor’’ 

from the CAA’s and RHR’s requirement 

that all states must conduct an FFA to 

determine what emission reduction 

measures constitute reasonable 

progress.35 The URP is a planning 

metric used to gauge the amount of 

progress made thus far and the amount 

left before reaching natural visibility 

conditions. However, the URP is not 

based on consideration of the four 

statutory factors and therefore cannot 

answer the question of whether the 

amount of progress being made in any 

particular planning period is 

‘‘reasonable progress.’’ See 82 FR 3093, 

3099–3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 15–16. 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to 

have certain strategies and elements in 

place for assessing and reporting on 

visibility. Individual requirements 

under this subsection apply either to 

states with Class I areas within their 

borders, states with no Class I areas but 

that are reasonably anticipated to cause 

or contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area, or both. A state with 

Class I areas within its borders must 

submit with its SIP revision a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all Class I areas within 

the state. SIP revisions for such states 

must also provide for the establishment 

of any additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess visibility 

conditions in Class I areas, as well as 

reporting of all visibility monitoring 

data to EPA at least annually. 

Compliance with the monitoring 

strategy requirement may be met 

through a state’s participation in the 

IMPROVE monitoring network, which is 

used to measure visibility impairment 

caused by air pollution at the 156 Class 

I areas covered by the visibility 

program. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) 

introductory text, (f)(6)(i) and (iv). The 

IMPROVE monitoring data is used to 

determine the 20 percent most 

anthropogenically impaired and 20 

percent clearest sets of days every year 

at each Class I area and tracks visibility 

impairment over time. 

All states’ SIPs must provide for 

procedures by which monitoring data 

and other information are used to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment in affected Class I 

areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires 

that all states’ SIPs provide for a 

statewide inventory of emissions of 

pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area; 

the inventory must include emissions 

for the most recent year for which data 

are available and estimates of future 

projected emissions. States must also 

include commitments to update their 

inventories periodically. The 

inventories themselves do not need to 

be included as elements in the SIP and 

are not subject to EPA review as part of 

the Agency’s evaluation of a SIP 

revision.36 All states’ SIPs must also 

provide for any other elements, 

including reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other measures, that are necessary for 

states to assess and report on visibility. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019 

Guidance, a state may note in its 

regional haze SIP that its compliance 

with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule 

(AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, 

satisfies the requirement to provide for 

an emissions inventory for the most 

recent year for which data are available. 

To satisfy the requirement to provide 

estimates of future projected emissions, 

a state may explain in its SIP how 

projected emissions were developed for 

use in establishing RPGs for its own and 

nearby Class I areas.37

Separate from the requirements 

related to monitoring for regional haze 

purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the 

RHR also contains a requirement at 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any 

additional monitoring that may be 

needed to address visibility impairment 

in Class I areas from a single source or 

a small group of sources. This is called 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ 38 or RAVI. Under this 

provision, if EPA or the FLM of an 

affected Class I area has advised a state 

that additional monitoring is needed to 

assess RAVI, the state must include in 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105515 

39On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Florida regional haze SIP since 

Florida had relied on requirements of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule to satisfy certain regional haze 

requirements. See 76 FR 82219. However, EPA 

determined not to finalize the limited disapproval 

for Florida because the State had requested 

additional time to modify its SIP to address the 

change in applicability of the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule to Florida in the final rule published 

on August 8, 2011. See 76 FR 48208. EPA then 

proposed a limited approval of Florida’s first period 

regional haze plan submission on May 25, 2012. See 

77 FR 31240. Later, on August 29, 2013, EPA 

approved Florida’s first period regional haze plan 

submitted to EPA on March 19, 2010, as amended 

on August 31, 2010, and September 17, 2012. See 

78 FR 53250. 

40Bradwell Bay Wilderness Area is one of only 

two Class I areas in the country for which visibility 

is not considered an important value. As such, the 

RHR does not apply to Bradwell Bay Wilderness 

Area. See 44 FR 69122, (November 3, 1979). 

its SIP revision for the second planning 

period an appropriate strategy for 

evaluating such impairment. 

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Toward the RPGs 

Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state’s 

regional haze SIP revision to address the 

requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the plan 

revision due in 2021 will serve also as 

a progress report addressing the period 

since submission of the progress report 

for the first planning period. The 

regional haze progress report 

requirement is designed to inform the 

public and EPA about a state’s 

implementation of its existing LTS and 

whether such implementation is in fact 

resulting in the expected visibility 

improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 

(May 4, 2016) (82 FR 3119, January 10, 

2017). To this end, every state’s SIP 

revision for the second planning period 

is required to describe the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the state’s LTS, including 

BART and reasonable progress emission 

reduction measures from the first 

planning period, and the resulting 

emissions reductions. See 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) and (2). 

A core component of the progress 

report requirements is an assessment of 

changes in visibility conditions on the 

clearest days and most impaired days. 

For second planning period progress 

reports, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires 

states with Class I areas within their 

borders to first determine current 

visibility conditions for each area on the 

most impaired and clearest days, 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to 

calculate the difference between those 

current conditions and baseline (2000– 

2004) visibility conditions in order to 

assess progress made to date. See 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also 

assess the changes in visibility 

impairment for the clearest days and 

most impaired days since they 

submitted their first planning period 

progress reports. See 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5). Since different 

states submitted their first planning 

period progress reports at different 

times, the starting point for this 

assessment will vary state by state. 

Similarly, states must provide 

analyses tracking the change in 

emissions of pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment from all sources 

and activities within the state over the 

period since they submitted their first 

planning period progress reports. See 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in 

emissions should be identified by the 

type of source or activity. Section 

51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes in 

emissions since the period addressed by 

the previous progress report and 

requires states’ SIP revisions to include 

an assessment of any significant changes 

in anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state. This assessment must 

include an explanation of whether these 

changes in emissions were anticipated 

and whether they have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing emissions 

and improving visibility relative to what 

the state projected based on its LTS for 

the first planning period. 

G. Requirements for State and Federal 

Land Manager (FLM) Coordination 

CAA section 169A(d) requires that 

before a state holds a public hearing on 

a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it 

must consult with the appropriate FLM 

or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, 

the state must include a summary of the 

FLMs’ conclusions and 

recommendations in the notice to the 

public. Consistent with this statutory 

requirement, the RHR also requires that 

states ‘‘provide the [FLM] with an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at a point early enough in the 

State’s policy analyses of its long-term 

strategy emission reduction obligation 

so that information and 

recommendations provided by the 

[FLM] can meaningfully inform the 

State’s decisions on the long-term 

strategy.’’ See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). 

Consultation that occurs 120 days prior 

to any public hearing or public 

comment opportunity will be deemed 

‘‘early enough,’’ but the RHR provides 

that in any event the opportunity for 

consultation must be provided at least 

60 days before a public hearing or 

comment opportunity. This consultation 

must include the opportunity for the 

FLMs to discuss their assessment of 

visibility impairment in any Class I area 

and their recommendations on the 

development and implementation of 

strategies to address such impairment. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for 

EPA to evaluate whether FLM 

consultation meeting the requirements 

of the RHR has occurred, the SIP 

submission should include 

documentation of the timing and 

content of such consultation. The SIP 

revision submitted to EPA must also 

describe how the state addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. See 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP 

revision must provide procedures for 

continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4). 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Florida’s 

Regional Haze Submissions for the 

Second Planning Period 

On October 8, 2021, June 14, 2024, 

and October 28, 2024, FDEP submitted 

revisions to the Florida SIP to address 

the State’s regional haze obligations for 

the second planning period, which runs 

through 2028, in accordance with CAA 

section 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(f).39 The following sections 

contain EPA’s evaluation of Florida’s 

Haze Plan with respect to the 

requirements of the CAA and RHR for 

the second planning period of the 

regional haze program. 

Florida has three mandatory Class I 

areas within its borders: Everglades 

National Park (Everglades), 

Chassahowitzka National Wilderness 

Area (Chassahowitzka), and St. Marks 

National Wilderness Area (St. Marks).40

The following sections describe 

Florida’s Haze Plan, including analyses 

conducted by VISTAS and Florida’s 

determinations based on those analyses, 

Florida’s assessment of progress made 

since the first planning period in 

reducing emissions of visibility 

impairing pollutants, and the visibility 

improvement progress at its Class I areas 

and nearby Class I areas. 

A. Identification of Class I Areas 

1. RHR Requirement: Section 

169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each 

state in which any Class I area is located 

or ‘‘the emissions from which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility’’ in a Class I area to have a 

plan for making reasonable progress 

toward the national visibility goal. The 

RHR implements this statutory 

requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which 

provides that each state’s plan ‘‘must 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105516 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

41PSAT is Particulate Matter Source 

Apportionment Technology, which is an option in 

the photochemical visibility impact modeling 

performed by VISTAS that is a methodology to 

track the fate of both primary and secondary PM. 

PSAT allows emissions to be tracked (‘‘tagged’’) for 

individual facilities as well as various combinations 

of sectors and geographic areas (e.g., by state). The 

PSAT results provide the modeled contribution of 

each of the tagged sources or groups of sources to 

the total visibility impacts. 

42FDEP did not include directly emitted PM data 

in this analysis because the PSAT analyses 

performed by VISTAS tagged statewide emissions 

of SO2 and NOX and did not tag primary (directly 

emitted) direct PM emissions in the analysis after 

concluding that SO2 and NOX emissions, 

particularly from point sources, are projected to 

have the largest impact on visibility impairment in 

2028. 

43The visibility impacts projected in 2028 to the 

top three Class I areas impacted by Florida’s SO2

and NOX emissions (excluding the three Florida 

Class I areas) are: 14.2 percent at Okefenokee 

(Georgia); 8.8 percent at Wolf Island (Georgia); and 

4.1 percent at Cape Romain (South Carolina). 

44See figures 2–12 and 2–13 of the 2021 Plan for 

the VISTAS Class I areas. See also section IV.C.2.a 

of this document. 

45See section IV.C.2.e of this document and 

section I.F of EPA’s TSD for additional detail 

regarding consultation. 

address regional haze in each 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

within the State and in each mandatory 

Class I Federal area located outside the 

State that may be affected by emissions 

from within the State,’’ and (f)(2), which 

requires each state’s plan to include a 

LTS that addresses regional haze in 

such Class I areas. To develop a state’s 

LTS, a state must first determine which 

Class I areas may be affected by its own 

emissions. For out-of-state Class I areas, 

states must assess their visibility 

impacts on a statewide basis, which is 

discussed in section IV.A.2 below, and 

on a source specific basis, which is 

discussed in IV.C.2 below. 

2. State Assessment: To address 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2), Florida identified 

Class I areas affected by statewide 

emissions of the primary visibility 

impairing pollutants and then consulted 

states with Class I areas affected by 

Florida’s statewide emissions. 

Specifically, FDEP presented the results 

of Particulate Matter Source 

Apportionment Technology (PSAT) 41

modeling, which VISTAS conducted to 

estimate the projected impact of 

statewide SO2 and NOX emissions 

across all emissions sectors in 2028 on 

total light extinction for the 20 percent 

most impaired days in all Class I areas 

in the VISTAS modeling domain.42

In table 10–1 on page 297 of Florida’s 

2021 Plan, Florida listed the top 10 

Class I areas outside of the State that are 

impacted by Florida sources’ emissions 

of SO2 and NOX, ranked by absolute 

impact in Mm¥1. The top 10 areas 

impacted by Florida’s statewide 

emissions of SO2 and NOX are located 

in the following six States: Alabama 

(Sipsey National Wilderness Area); 

Georgia (Cohutta National Wilderness 

Area (Cohutta), Okefenokee National 

Wilderness Area (Okefenokee), and 

Wolf Island National Wilderness Area 

(Wolf Island)); Louisiana (Breton 

National Wilderness Area (Breton)); 

North Carolina (Shining Rock National 

Wilderness Area and Swanquarter 

National Wilderness Area); North 

Carolina/Tennessee (Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park and Joyce 

Kilmer-Slickrock National Wilderness 

Area (Joyce Kilmer)); and South 

Carolina (Cape Romain National 

Wilderness Area (Cape Romain)).43

Florida consulted with the VISTAS 

states (see section 10.1 and appendix F– 

1 of the 2021 Plan) and the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU) states (see section 10.3 and 

appendix F–4 of the 2021 Plan). 

Similarly, FDEP participated in 

multistate conference calls with the 

Central States Air Resource Agencies 

Association to discuss its statewide 

impacts to Class I areas, including 

Breton in Louisiana. In addition to these 

interstate consultations related to 

Florida’s statewide visibility impacts to 

Class I areas, Florida consulted with 

Georgia on specific Florida sources 

impacting visibility at Georgia’s Class I 

areas. FDEP documented consultations 

with these states in section 10 and 

appendix F of the 2021 Plan. Florida’s 

interstate consultation is further 

discussed in section IV.C.2.e of this 

proposed rulemaking and section I.F of 

EPA’s Technical Support Document 

(TSD). 

3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to 

find that Florida adequately addressed 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) regarding 

identification of its statewide visibility 

impacts to Class I areas outside of the 

State and consulting with states with 

Class I areas which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility due to Florida’s 

emissions. EPA proposes to find that the 

State’s approach of focusing on SO2 and 

NOX impacts from Florida on the basis 

that, for current visibility conditions 

evaluated for the 2014–2018 period, 

ammonium sulfate is the dominant 

visibility impairing pollutant at most of 

the VISTAS Class I areas followed by 

organic carbon and ammonium nitrate 

(depending on the area), is reasonable.44

VISTAS focused on controllable 

emissions from point sources and thus 

initially considered impacts from 

sulfates and nitrates on regional haze at 

Class I areas affected by VISTAS states. 

EPA proposes to find that FDEP 

satisfied the part of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) 

related to the identification of Class I 

areas outside of Florida that may be 

affected by emissions from within the 

State and consultation with affected 

states because the State analyzed its 

statewide sulfate and nitrate 

contributions to total visibility 

impairment at out-of-state Class I areas 

in table 10–1 of the 2021 Plan; and the 

State completed consultation with 

VISTAS and MANE–VU states via the 

RPO processes, and, in some cases, on 

a state-to-state basis and documented 

those consultations.45

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, 

and Natural Visibility Conditions; 

Progress to Date; and the URP 

1. RHR Requirement: Section 

51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine 

the following for ‘‘each mandatory Class 

I Federal area located within the State’’: 

baseline visibility conditions for the 

clearest days and most impaired days, 

natural visibility conditions for the 

clearest days and most impaired days, 

progress to date for the clearest days and 

most impaired days, the differences 

between current visibility conditions 

and natural visibility conditions, and 

the URP. This section also provides the 

option for states to propose adjustments 

to the URP line for a Class I area to 

account for visibility impacts from 

anthropogenic sources outside the 

United States and/or the impacts from 

wildland prescribed fires that were 

conducted for certain, specified 

objectives. See 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B). 

2. State Assessment: In the 2021 Plan, 

Florida calculated the baseline visibility 

conditions (2000–2004) in table 2–3; 

current visibility conditions (2014– 

2018) in table 2–5; and natural visibility 

conditions in table 2–2 for the 20 

percent most impaired and 20 percent 

clearest days for the State’s Class I areas 

in deciviews, as shown in table 1, 

below. Florida also calculated the actual 

progress made toward natural visibility 

conditions to date since the baseline 

period (current minus baseline), and the 

additional progress needed to reach 

natural visibility conditions from 

current conditions (natural minus 

current), in deciviews, in table 2–6 (for 

the 20 percent most impaired days) and 

table 2–7 (for the 20 percent clearest 

days) as shown in table 2, below. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105517 

46See Memorandum from Richard A, Wayland, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors re: Availability of 

Modeling Data and Associated Technical Support 

Document for the EPA’s Updated 2028 Visibility 

Air Quality Modeling (September 19, 2019), 

available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2019-10/documents/updated_2028_regional_haze_

modeling-tsd-2019_0.pdf. 

47See section 6.6, ‘‘Model Performance for 

Everglades,’’ on pp. 146–154 of Florida’s 2021 Plan. 

TABLE 1—BASELINE, CURRENT, AND NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN FLORIDA’S CLASS I AREAS IN DECIVIEWS (dv) 

Class I area 

Baseline 

clearest 

20% 

Baseline 

most 

impaired 

20% 

Current 

clearest 

20% 

Current most 

impaired 

20% 

Natural 

clearest 

20% 

Natural most 

impaired 

20% 

Chassahowitzka ....................................................... 15.60 24.52 12.41 17.41 6.00 9.03 

Everglades ............................................................... 11.69 19.52 10.37 14.90 5.22 8.33 

St. Marks .................................................................. 14.34 24.68 11.15 17.39 5.37 9.13 

TABLE 2—ACTUAL PROGRESS FOR VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN FLORIDA’S CLASS I AREAS IN DECIVIEWS (dv) 

Class I area 

Current minus 

baseline for 

clearest 20% 

Current minus 

baseline for most 

impaired 20% 

Natural minus 

current for 

clearest 20% 

Natural minus 

current for most 

impaired 20% 

Chassahowitzka ....................................................................... ¥3.19 ¥7.11 ¥6.41 ¥8.38 

Everglades ............................................................................... ¥1.32 ¥4.62 ¥5.15 ¥6.57 

St. Marks .................................................................................. ¥3.19 ¥7.29 ¥5.78 ¥8.26 

Additionally, figures 3–1, 3–2, and 3– 

3 of the 2021 Plan provide the URP 

figures on the 20 percent most impaired 

days for Chassahowitzka, Everglades, 

and St. Marks, respectively. The URPs 

were developed using EPA guidance 

and data collected from the IMPROVE 

monitoring network, which is used to 

measure visibility impairment caused 

by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program. All 

Florida Class I areas are projected to be 

below the 2028 URP values for the 

second planning period based on 

VISTAS’ modeling. However, due to 

issues in the VISTAS model 

performance for Everglades, Florida 

relied on visibility modeling completed 

by EPA in 2019 for this Class I area.46

EPA modeling tended to have better 

performance for Everglades due to the 

use of an expanded modeling domain, 

updated boundary conditions (including 

marine offshore emissions), and a more 

recent base year, allowing for more 

accurate 2028 emissions and visibility 

projections. Thus, Florida is relying on 

EPA’s regional haze modeling for 

Everglades visibility projections and 

RPG development. 

3. EPA Evaluation: EPA is proposing 

to find that Florida’s Haze Plan meets 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) 

because the State provides for its three 

Class I areas: baseline, current and 

natural visibility conditions for the 20 

percent clearest days and most impaired 

days, progress to date for the 20 percent 

clearest days and most impaired days, 

the differences between the current 

visibility condition and natural 

visibility condition, and the URP for 

each Class I area in Florida. Further, 

FDEP provided a reasonable explanation 

for using EPA’s modeling for 2028 for 

Everglades is appropriate in this 

instance as mentioned above.47

C. LTS for Regional Haze 

1. RHR Requirement: Each state 

having a Class I area within its borders 

or emissions that may affect visibility in 

a Class I area must develop a LTS for 

making reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal. See CAA 

169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the 

Background section of this document, 

reasonable progress is achieved when 

all states contributing to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area are 

implementing the measures 

determined—through application of the 

four statutory factors to sources of 

visibility impairing pollutants—to be 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state’s 

LTS must include the enforceable 

emission limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

All new (i.e., additional) measures 

that are the outcome of FFAs are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

and must be in the LTS. If the outcome 

of an FFA and other measures necessary 

to make reasonable progress is that no 

new measures are reasonable for a 

source, that source’s existing measures 

are necessary to make reasonable 

progress, unless the state can 

demonstrate that the source will 

continue to implement those measures 

and will not increase its emission rate. 

Existing measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress must also be 

in the LTS. In developing its LTS, a 

state must also consider the five 

additional factors in 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its reasonable 

progress determinations, the state must 

describe the criteria used to determine 

which sources or group of sources were 

evaluated (i.e., subjected to FFA) for the 

second planning period and how the 

four factors were taken into 

consideration in selecting the emission 

reduction measures for inclusion in the 

LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

States may rely on technical 

information developed by the RPOs of 

which they are members to select 

sources for FFA and to satisfy the 

documentation requirements under 40 

CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has 

performed source selection and/or FFAs 

(or considered the five additional factors 

in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its 

member states, those states may rely on 

the RPO’s analyses for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the states have 

a reasonable basis to do so and all state 

participants in the RPO process have 

approved the technical analyses. See 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

States may also satisfy the 

requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) to 

engage in interstate consultation with 

other states that have emissions that are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in a given Class I 

area under the auspices of intra- and 

inter-RPO engagement. 

The consultation requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide that states 

must consult with other states that are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in a Class I area to 

develop coordinated emission 

management strategies containing the 

emission reductions measures that are 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105518 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

48The AoI represents the geographical area 

around a Class I area in which emissions sources 

located in the AoI have the potential to contribute 

to visibility impairment at that Class I area. 

Emissions data from sources in the AoI is then 

evaluated to determine which of those sources are 

most likely contributing to visibility impairment at 

that Class I area. VISTAS used AoI analysis for all 

point source facilities in the VISTAS modeling 

domain to determine the relative visibility 

impairment impacts at each Class I area associated 

with sulfate and nitrate. The results of the facilitylevel AoI analyses were then used to rank and 

prioritize facilities for further evaluation via PSAT. 

49PSAT modeling is a type of photochemical 

modeling which quantifies individual facility 

visibility impacts to an area. See footnote 40. FDEP 

applied its PSAT threshold by facility. In the 

regional haze SIPs developed for the first round of 

planning, many VISTAS states used the AoI 

approach and a one percent threshold by unit. 

Florida followed a different approach using 

emissions (tons per year) divided by distance 

(kilometers) (Q/d) but showed that this approach 

screened in a similar number of units to the AoI 

approach, and therefore, had similar screening 

stringency. 

50The fossil fuel steam generating unit No. 3 

(EU006) at CD McIntosh was permanently shut 

down in 2021. See appendices G–3 and G–5h of the 

2021 Plan. 51 In June 2022, the WestRock-Panama City 

facility announced its intention to permanently 

cease operations. See section 7.8.4 of the 2024 

supplement. FDEP included documentation for 

closure of the WestRock-Panama City facility in its 

2024 Supplement. In addition, on October 18, 2024, 

FDEP sent a site inspection report and other 

supporting documentation for the WestRockPanama City closure as an addendum to the 2024 

Supplement. The inspection report documents the 

permanent closure and inoperable status of the 

facility and notes that any project to restore the 

facility would be subjected to mandatory New 

Source Review and that multiple new source 

performance standards would inevitably apply. 

This additional documentation may be found in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) 

require states to consider the emission 

reduction measures identified by other 

states as necessary for reasonable 

progress and to include agreed upon 

measures in their SIPs, respectively. 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to 

what happens if states cannot agree on 

what measures are necessary to make 

reasonable progress. 

The documentation requirement of 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides that states 

may meet their obligations to document 

the technical bases on which they are 

relying to determine the emission 

reductions measures that are necessary 

to make reasonable progress through an 

RPO, as long as the process has been 

‘‘approved by all State participants.’’ 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires 

that the emissions information 

considered to determine the measures 

that are necessary to make reasonable 

progress include information on 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which the state has submitted triennial 

emissions data to EPA (or a more recent 

year), with a 12-month exemption 

period for newly submitted data. 

2. State Assessment: To develop 

Florida’s LTS, FDEP set criteria to 

identify sources to evaluate for potential 

controls outlined in section II.B, 

selected sources based on those criteria, 

considered the four CAA factors for the 

selected sources (or demonstrated the 

sources have existing effective controls 

as explained in IV.C.2.b. below), 

provided emissions limits and 

supporting conditions for incorporation 

into the SIP, and evaluated the five 

additional factors at 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv). 

a. Source Selection Criteria: With 

respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), 

Florida, through VISTAS, used a twostep source selection process: (1) Area of 

Influence (AoI) analysis,48 and (2) 

PSAT49 modeling for sources exceeding 

an AoI threshold. Florida considered the 

four factors (or demonstrated the 

sources have existing effective controls 

as explained in IV.C.2.b. below) for 

sources that exceeded both the AoI and 

PSAT thresholds. Both sulfates and 

nitrates were considered in the source 

selection process. To identify sources 

having the most impact on visibility at 

Class I areas for PSAT modeling, Florida 

used an AoI threshold of greater than or 

equal to five percent for sulfate and 

nitrate combined area for all sources 

within and outside of the State. Sources 

selected at the AoI screening step for 

PSAT modeling are listed in table 7–11 

of the 2021 Plan. Of these 18 sources, 17 

sources located within Florida exceeded 

the AoI threshold for any Class I area in 

the State: Cemex Miami Cement Plant, 

Duke Crystal River Power Plant (DukeCrystal River), FPL Turkey Point, 

Georgia-Pacific—Foley Cellulose Perry 

Mill (Foley), Gulf Clean Energy Center— 

Crist Generating Plant, Homestead City 

Utilities, Jacksonville Electric 

Authority—Northside Generating 

Station (JEA Northside), Mosaic 

Fertilizer, LLC—New Wales (MosaicNew Wales), Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC— 

Riverview (Mosaic-Riverview), Mosaic 

Fertilizer, LLC—Bartow (MosaicBartow), Nutrien White Springs 

Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. (Nutrien), 

Rayonier Performance Fibers LLC, 

Tallahassee City Purdom Generating 

Station, Tampa Electric Company—Big 

Bend Power Station (TECO-Big Bend), 

Titan-Pennsuco, WestRock Fernandina 

Beach Paper Mill (WestRockFernandina), and WestRock Panama 

City Paper Mill (WestRock-Panama 

City). 

Florida, in coordination with the 

other VISTAS states, selected sources 

for further evaluation using a PSAT 

threshold of greater than or equal to one 

percent visibility impact for sulfate or 

nitrate. Sources both within and outside 

of Florida that were identified for an 

emissions control analysis are listed in 

tables 7–25 and 7–26 of the 2021 Plan, 

and Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC-South Pierce 

(Mosaic-South Pierce) is identified in 

section 7.6.4.1 of the 2024 Supplement. 

Twelve sources were selected by FDEP 

for an emissions control analysis. In 

addition, FDEP identified two 

additional sources in Georgia and 

Kentucky that were requested by FDEP 

for further analysis as part of the 

interstate consultation process. The 12 

sources in Florida are: Duke-Crystal 

River, Foley, JEA Northside, Lakeland 

CD McIntosh Jr. Power Plant (CD 

McIntosh),50 Mosaic-Bartow, MosaicNew Wales, Mosaic-South Pierce, 

Nutrien, Seminole Electric Cooperative 

Incorporated (Seminole), TECO-Big 

Bend, WestRock-Fernandina, and 

WestRock-Panama City.51 Because no 

sources exceeded the State’s PSAT 

threshold for nitrates and because 

ammonium sulfate continues to be the 

dominant visibility impairing pollutant 

at Class I areas potentially impacted by 

Florida sources (as discussed in the 

following paragraphs), FDEP focused 

solely on evaluating potential SO2

controls to address regional haze in 

potentially affected Class I areas. FDEP 

allowed the selected facilities to either 

demonstrate that units emitting greater 

than five tons per year (tpy) of SO2 were 

already effectively controlled or 

complete an FFA for this pollutant. 

FDEP determined that during the 

2014 to 2018 timeframe, Florida’s Class 

I areas were impacted most heavily by 

sulfate. See figures 2–9 through 2–11 of 

the 2021 Plan. In Florida’s AoI analysis, 

Florida used extinction-weighted 

residence time plots to allow for a 

separate analysis of sulfates and 

nitrates. Figures 7–42, 7–43, and 7–44 of 

the 2021 Plan contain the sulfate 

extinction weighted residence time for 

Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and 

Everglades, respectively, for the 20 

percent most impaired days from 2011 

to 2016. Figures 7–45, 7–46, and 7–47 

contain the nitrate extinction weighted 

residence time for Chassahowitzka, St. 

Marks, and Everglades, respectively, for 

the 20 percent most impaired days from 

2011 to 2016. The sulfate extinction 

weighted residence times are 

significantly higher (approximately ten 

times higher) than the nitrate extinction 

weighted residence times on the 20 

percent most impaired days during this 

time period, demonstrating the 

importance of focusing on SO2 emission 

reductions. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105519 

52See figures 2–9 through 2–12 of the 2021 Plan. 

Figures 2–9 through 2–11 provide 2014–2018 

speciated PM data for Florida’s Class I areas 

showing that ammonium sulfate is the dominant 

visibility impairing pollutant. Figures 2–11 and 2– 

12 provide speciated PM data for 2014–2018 for the 

VISTAS Class I areas and neighboring areas on the 

20 percent most impaired days and 20 percent 

clearest days, respectively. 

53See section 2.5.2 (particularly figures 2–6 

through 2–8 for 2009–2013) and section 2.4.1 of the 

2021 Plan related to ammonium nitrate. 

54Figures 7–20 and 7–21 provides the 2028 

visibility impairment from sulfate and nitrate on the 

20 percent most impaired days for all 18 Class I 

areas in VISTAS. The figures show the EGU and 

non-EGU contributions to total nitrate derived light 

extinction in 2028. 

55As mentioned above, two of the 12 selected 

facilities permanently shut down (CD McIntosh 

Unit 3 and WestRock-Panama City). 

56 JEA Northside Unit 3 was selected for FFA and 

Units 1 and 2 were shown to be effectively 

controlled for SO2. 

57FDEP determined that an FFA was not needed 

for Bark Boiler No. 2 because annual SO2 emissions 

from this unit are significantly lower than five tpy, 

Florida’s threshold for the second planning period 

for determining which units are subject to an FFA 

for any selected source. 

58On January 19, 2024, FDEP published in the 

Florida Administrative Register a public notice of 

hearing for consideration of a proposed SIP 

revision, which included the FFA for Foley. The 

comment period for this proposed SIP revision 

closed on March 8, 2024. However, in April 2024, 

the Foley facility announced its intent to 

permanently cease operations. FDEP provided 

documentation of the closure in their 2024 

Supplement. See section 7.8.3. However, because 

Foley is in an ongoing process to dismantle the 

facility, FDEP was unable to provide documentation 

to EPA that the facility was inoperable. Thus, FDEP 

provided the FFA for Foley that was originally part 

of the January 19, 2024, public engagement plan. 

The Haze Plan shows the VISTAS 

modeled projections demonstrating that 

ammonium sulfate is expected to 

remain the dominant visibility 

impairing pollutant through 2028, by a 

factor of four or greater over ammonium 

nitrate at Class I areas in Florida.52 In 

section 7.4 of the 2021 Plan, FDEP 

explains the VISTAS analyses relied 

upon to support the State’s focus on SO2

control evaluations. Section 10.4.1 

provides the State’s responses to FLM 

comments on the exclusion of NOx 

control evaluations from the FFAs.53

Additionally, in section 2.6 of the 

2021 Plan, FDEP reviewed visibility 

monitoring data for the period 2014– 

2018 for Chassahowitzka, Everglades, 

and St. Marks. Figures 2–9 through 2– 

11 show the reconstructed light 

extinction for the 20 percent most 

impaired days at each Florida Class I 

areas, respectively. The data indicates 

that sulfates are the primary visibility 

impacting species in Florida’s Class I 

areas during the 2014–2018 timeframe. 

Furthermore, figures 7–22 

(Chassahowitzka), 7–23 (St. Marks), and 

7–24 (Everglades) in the 2021 Plan show 

that the majority of 2028 predicted 

nitrate light extinction on the 20 percent 

most impaired days at Florida’s Class I 

areas is not caused by NOX emissions 

from electric generating unit (EGU) and 

non-EGU point sources.54 At 

Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and the 

Everglades, projected total sulfate 

extinction is greater than 10 Mm¥1 and 

projected total nitrate extinction is less 

than five Mm¥1. 

Section I.A of the TSD to this 

proposed rulemaking provides a 

summary of the State’s source selection 

criteria, including the technical 

rationale for the State’s focus on SO2

controls for the second planning period 

and the outcomes of the State’s source 

selection process. 

b. Consideration of the Four CAA 

Factors: 

As discussed in section IV.C.2.b.ii 

(Existing, Effective Control 

Demonstrations) below, eight of the 12 

selected facilities in Florida 

demonstrated that some or all of the 

selected units are effectively controlled 

for SO2. FDEP stated that there is a low 

likelihood that cost-effective 

technological advancements exist that 

could provide further reasonable 

emission reductions for these sources. 

For the remaining selected sources, 

FDEP fully considered the four CAA 

factors as discussed in section IV.C.2.b.i 

below.55

i. FFAs: Florida considered each of 

the four CAA factors for Foley, JEA 

Northside (Unit 3),56 and WestRockFernandina and described how the four 

factors were taken into consideration in 

selecting the measures for inclusion in 

the State’s LTS. Florida is proposing 

selected permit conditions summarized 

below for incorporation into the SIP as 

measures necessary for reasonable 

progress for the second planning period. 

See section I.B of the TSD to this 

proposed rulemaking for additional 

details. 

(a) Foley: Foley is a softwood Kraft 

Process Pulp Mill that manufactured 

bleached market pulps and dissolving 

cellulose pulps. FDEP requested that the 

facility complete an FFA for five units 

expected to emit more than five tpy of 

SO2 in 2028. FDEP evaluated emissions 

reductions measures for SO2 for the No. 

1 Power Boiler; No. 1 Bark Boiler; and 

Nos. 2, 3, and 4 Recovery Furnaces.57 58

No. 1 Power Boiler: The No. 1 Power 

Boiler serves as the secondary control 

device for low volume, high 

concentration (LVHC) non-condensable 

gas (NCG) and fires natural gas, No. 6 

fuel oil, tall oil, and on-specification 

used oil. When NCGs are routed to the 

No. 1 Power Boiler, a pre-scrubber is 

used to assist with reduction of total 

reduced sulfur (TRS) which in turn 

limits SO2 production. The Mill 

identified a wet scrubber and a dry 

sorbent injection (DSI) system as 

available and feasible controls for this 

unit. The cost evaluation for the wet 

scrubber resulted in an estimated cost 

effectiveness of $13,547/ton to reduce 

actual SO2 emissions by approximately 

80 tpy. FDEP determined that 

installation of a wet scrubber on No. 1 

Power Boiler is not cost effective. As for 

the DSI system, the cost evaluation 

resulted in an estimated costeffectiveness value of $21,727/ton to 

reduce actual SO2 emissions by 

approximately 73 tpy, which FDEP 

considered not cost effective. FDEP, 

however, determined that existing lowsulfur fuel restrictions on this unit were 

necessary for reasonable progress as 

follows: fire only natural gas except 

during specified times when natural gas 

is unavailable or there is a physical 

problem at the mill that prevents the 

firing of natural gas, in which case the 

unit may fire liquid fuels; tall oil is 

prohibited; No. 6 fuel oil purchases 

must meet a sulfur content limit of no 

more than 1.02 percent; and the unit is 

only permitted to burn LVHC NCG 

when the No. 1 Bark Boiler is 

unavailable or when necessary for 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart S, such as for monitoring for 

detectable leaks for the closed vent 

system. Florida has identified permit 

conditions for these restrictions for 

incorporation into the SIP. 

Regarding the other CAA factors, 

there is no time necessary to comply 

with the low-sulfur fuel option, and the 

use of low sulfur fuel did not result in 

non-air environmental impacts. For the 

wet scrubber and DSI options, FDEP 

states that it may take up to four years 

to secure funding, make the required 

technical changes, and perform testing 

and monitoring to ensure proper system 

operation for the installation of wet 

scrubbers and DSI systems. Energy and 

non-air environmental impacts include 

additional electrical costs associated 

with DSI and scrubber operation, and 

additional fresh water and wastewater 

disposal use for the wet scrubber. 

Additionally, the No. 1 Power Boiler is 

assumed to have 30 years or more of 

remaining useful life, and an interest 

rate of 3.25 was used when considering 

the annualized costs of controls. 

No. 1 Bark Boiler: The No. 1 Bark 

Boiler serves as the primary control 

device for LVHC NCGs and provides the 

Mill with 200,000 pounds per hour (lbs/ 

hr) (24-hour block average basis) of 

steam. The No. 1 Bark Boiler fires 

natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, tall oil, and 

on-specification used oil and is 

equipped with a cyclone collector and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105520 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

59FDEP provided these cost effectiveness values 

because FDEP contends the costs provided by JEA 

were not justified adequately or were inconsistent 

with EPA’s ‘‘Air Pollution Control Cost Manual’’ 

(Cost Manual) in the cost analysis. In all 

calculations, JEA used a seven percent interest rate 

instead of 3.25 percent (the current bank prime 

interest rate), used a 20-year lifetime instead of a 

more conservative 30-year lifetime, and included 

property taxes, insurance, and administration costs 

in the direct operating costs, which FDEP contends 

were not justified. 

a wet venturi scrubber. Currently, 

permit conditions for No. 1 Bark Boiler 

require the wet venturi scrubber to meet 

pH and flow rate restrictions only when 

the TRS pre-scrubber is not operational. 

For the FFA, FDEP evaluated one 

control option which consists of 

running the existing wet venturi 

scrubber whenever NCGs or oil are 

combusted in the No. 1 Bark Boiler, 

maintaining a minimum pH of 8 (threehour block average), and flow rate of 

1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (threehour block average), rather than only 

when the TRS pre-scrubber is 

unavailable. The increase in the 

operation of the wet scrubber requires 

an increase in the amount of time 

caustic is added to the wet scrubber 

which requires the addition of an 

antiscalant to minimize fouling and 

scaling due to caustic buildup in the 

boiler. FDEP evaluated these operational 

changes as technically feasible, and the 

cost evaluation resulted in an estimated 

annualized cost effectiveness of $2,627/ 

ton to remove approximately 96 tpy of 

SO2 emissions. FDEP determined this 

control to be cost effective. 

Implementing the increased operation of 

the wet scrubber requires adding 

additional caustic and scalant to the 

scrubber control system, which could be 

done with within 12 months with no 

negative non-air environmental impacts. 

The No. 1 Bark Boiler is assumed to 

have 30 years or more of remaining 

useful life, and an interest rate of 3.25 

percent was used when considering the 

annualized costs of controls. Florida has 

identified permit conditions for these 

requirements for incorporation into the 

SIP. 

FDEP also determined that certain 

existing measures are necessary for 

reasonable progress and proposed for 

incorporation into the SIP low sulfur 

fuel restrictions that are similar to the 

restrictions proposed for No. 1 Power, 

except the No. 1 Bark Boiler is 

permitted to burn wood in addition to 

natural gas as the primary fuel type. 

FDEP is proposing permit conditions 

reflecting these requirements for 

incorporation into the SIP. 

Nos 2, 3, and 4 Recovery Furnaces: 

The three recovery furnaces are lowodor, non-direct contact evaporator 

units that burn the organic material 

present in black liquor (a byproduct in 

the Kraft Mill process). The furnaces fire 

natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, No. 2 fuel oil, 

tall oil, ultra-low sulfur diesel, onspecification used oil, and methanol 

(methanol is only fired in select 

furnaces). Foley considered adding 

several common flue gas desulfurization 

(FGD) systems to the recovery furnaces, 

including spray dryer absorbers (SDA), 

DSI, and conventional wet scrubbers. 

Considering the antiquated design of the 

furnaces, FDEP found the addition of a 

wet scrubber to be the only feasible 

control technology. 

FDEP identified a wet scrubber as a 

potential control option for the recovery 

furnaces, but noted that it is not aware 

of the installation of a wet scrubber on 

any recovery furnaces across the 

country. The cost effectiveness to add a 

wet scrubber was estimated at values of: 

$7,779/ton to reduce SO2 by 

approximately 592 tons annually for 

Recovery Furnace No. 2; $5,197/ton to 

reduce SO2 by approximately 1,050 tons 

annually for Recovery Furnace No. 3; 

and $6,587/ton to reduce SO2 by 

approximately 831 tons annually for 

Recovery Furnace No. 4. FDEP 

determined that adding a wet scrubber 

was not cost effective. FDEP estimated 

that it would take up to four years to 

install new controls at the recovery 

furnaces. Typical energy and non-air 

quality impacts of compliance include 

caustic and sulfuric acid costs, 

additional electrical costs associated 

with scrubber operation, additional 

fresh water for scrubber needs and 

wastewater disposal. It is assumed that 

the recovery furnaces have at least 30 

years of remaining useful life, and an 

interest rate of 3.5 percent was used 

when considering the annualized costs 

of controls. 

FDEP determined that the following 

existing measures at the recovery 

furnaces are necessary for reasonable 

progress: burn black liquor as the 

primary fuel; natural gas and liquid 

fuels may supplement recovery 

operations; a maximum sulfur content 

of 1.02 percent for purchased No. 6 fuel 

oil; and a SO2 emissions cap of 3,200 

tons per consecutive 12 operating 

months as measured by a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS). 

State Conclusions: Regarding the No. 

1 Power Boiler, FDEP determined that 

there were no cost-effective emission 

reductions for the No. 1 Power Boiler 

and determined that the existing 

measures at the No. 1 Power Boiler are 

necessary for reasonable progress. Thus, 

FDEP proposed low-sulfur fuel 

restrictions for incorporation into the 

SIP for the No. 1 Power Boiler as 

described above. 

Regarding the No. 1 Bark Boiler, FDEP 

determined that continuously running 

the wet venturi scrubber with added 

caustic and scalant to maintain a 

minimum pH of 8 is cost-effective and, 

therefore, the State has determined that 

these controls are necessary for 

reasonable progress. FDEP also 

determined that certain existing low 

sulfur fuel restrictions are necessary for 

reasonable progress and proposed low 

sulfur fuel restrictions that are similar to 

the restrictions proposed for the No. 1 

Power Boiler. 

Regarding the Nos. 2, 3, and 4 

Recovery Furnaces, after conducting a 

site visit at Foley and discussing the 

physical constraints and reviewing the 

costs, FDEP determined that installation 

of a wet scrubber located after the 

electro-static precipitator (ESP) is not 

cost-effective and, therefore, the existing 

measures described above for the Nos. 2, 

3 and 4 Recovery Furnaces are 

necessary for reasonable progress. 

FDEP identified permit conditions 

reflecting these new and existing SO2

measures in the ‘‘Materials to be 

Incorporated into the SIP’’ section of the 

Second 2024 Supplement for 

incorporation into the regulatory 

portion of the Florida SIP. 

(b) JEA Northside (Unit 3): JEA 

Northside is a power plant located in 

north Jacksonville. The main sources of 

SO2 emissions at JEA Northside are Nos. 

1 and 2 (EU 026 and EU 027) circulating 

fluidized-bed (CFB) Boilers and the No. 

3 (EU 003) Boiler. FDEP conducted an 

FFA for JEA Northside’s No. 3 Boiler. 

For the Nos. 1 and 2 CFB Boilers, 

Florida relied on an existing effective 

controls demonstration, as discussed 

below in section IV.C.2.b.ii. 

The No. 3 Boiler is a natural gas-fired 

electric utility steam generating unit as 

defined in 40 CFR 63.10042 that fires 

natural gas and limited amounts of No. 

6 fuel oil. The FFA for the No. 3 Boiler 

identified the following available 

controls: using lower sulfur No. 6 fuel 

oil (from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent), 

using ultra-low sulfur No. 2 fuel oil, or 

installing a wet FGD system. The cost 

effectiveness values for each control 

option are as follows: switching to a 

lower sulfur No. 6 fuel oil is $3,053/ton 

of SO2 removed, reducing emissions by 

49.9 tpy; switching to No. 2 fuel oil is 

$7,334/ton of SO2 removed, reducing 

emissions by 122.81 tpy; and installing 

a wet FGD system is $177,856/ton of 

SO2 removed.59

Regarding the other CAA factors, 

FDEP estimated that it would take nine 

months to one year to complete a switch 

to No. 2 or No. 6 fuel oil because a 

boiler outage of approximately two to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105521 

60See p. 13 of 34 of the ‘‘Materials to be 

Incorporated into the SIP’’ section to the 

administrative file of the 2021 Plan. 

61FDEP provided these cost effectiveness values 

because it contends that the costs provided by 

Westrock were not justified adequately or were 

inconsistent with the Cost Manual in the cost 

analysis provided by WestRock-Fernandina. 

Continued 

three months would be necessary to 

perform the new burner installation, 

and the State found no non-air 

environmental impacts from a switch. 

FDEP estimates installing a wet FGD 

system would take 36 months based on 

EPA’s Integrated Planning Model (IPM) 

estimates and the need for engineering 

design, equipment procurement, and 

installation, and testing. Regarding 

energy and non-air environmental 

impacts of the wet FGD, FDEP states 

that there are energy penalties due to 

the pressure drop through the absorbers 

and the energy usage by auxiliary 

systems and estimates that the total 

energy impacts would be about 30,000 

megawatt-hours for the maximum 

possible operation of Unit 3 currently 

authorized. Operation of wet FGD will 

also require the delivery, handling, and 

storage of limestone; the handling and 

disposal of FGD by-product (i.e., 

gypsum); and the use of process water. 

FDEP determined the remaining useful 

life factor for each control option to be 

30 years and used a 3.25 percent interest 

rate when considering the annualized 

costs of controls. 

State Conclusions: Regarding JEA 

Northside Unit 3, FDEP determined that 

switching to No. 2 fuel oil and installing 

a wet FGD system are not cost effective, 

and therefore, are not necessary for 

reasonable progress. FDEP determined 

that switching to a lower sulfur No. 6 

fuel oil is cost effective, and selected it 

as a measure necessary for reasonable 

progress for JEA Northside Unit 3. 

FDEP identified permit conditions 

reflecting this new SO2 measure in the 

‘‘Materials to be Incorporated into the 

SIP’’ section of the 2021 Plan for 

incorporation into the regulatory 

portion of the Florida SIP.60

(c) WestRock-Fernandina: WestRockFernandina is a fully integrated Kraft 

linerboard mill that produces linerboard 

from wood pulp and pulp derived from 

recycled corrugated containers. The Mill 

conducted projects totaling $15.9 

million in capital costs in 2016 and 

2017 to reduce both actual and 

allowable SO2 emissions so that 

modeled allowable emissions would 

demonstrate compliance with the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. Table 7–31 in the 2021 

Plan shows the decrease in emissions 

levels that have occurred since the 

2016–2017 timeframe. The last line in 

table 7–31 contains the updated, 

projected emissions from this facility. 

The largest SO2 sources at the Mill are 

the No. 5 and No. 7 Power Boilers and 

the No. 4 and No. 5 Recovery Boilers. 

The No. 5 Power Boiler burns 

carbonaceous fuel such as biomass, 

natural gas, ultra-low sulfur diesel 

(ULSD), or No. 2 fuel oil. Currently, this 

unit is prohibited from using No. 6 fuel 

oil or being used as a backup NCG 

control device unless otherwise 

approved by FDEP’s Division of Air 

Resource Management. Additionally, an 

engineering analysis must be submitted 

providing reasonable assurance that the 

boiler can comply with SO2 emissions 

standards of 15.0 lb/hour based on a 3- 

hour block average, as determined by 

data collected from a CEMS, during all 

periods of operation except when 

operating as a backup control device 

firing NCGs. The FFA for the No. 5 

Power Boiler identified installation of a 

wet scrubber, installation of a wet 

scrubber with a stack liner, or 

installation of a DSI system as potential 

additional controls. The cost 

effectiveness values of these additional 

controls are as follows: installing a wet 

scrubber is $285,615/ton of SO2

removed; installing a wet scrubber with 

stack liner is $298,499/ton of SO2

removed; and installing DSI is 

$277,093/ton of SO2 removed. 

According to the FFA, it would take at 

least four years to install a wet scrubber 

or DSI system, and there are energy and 

non-air environmental impacts that 

would result from installing these 

controls, such as an increase in water 

and electricity usage and wastewater 

generation. The No. 5 Power Boiler is 

assumed to have a remaining useful life 

of 20 years or more; however, FDEP 

conservatively used a lifetime of 30 

years to annualize costs and used a 3.25 

percent interest rate when considering 

the annualized costs of controls. FDEP 

determined that these controls are not 

cost effective. 

The No. 7 Power Boiler serves as a 

backup NCG control device and fires 

coal, oil, or natural gas. The FFA for the 

No. 7 Power Boiler identified reducing 

coal usage to 125 tons per day (tpd), 

installing a wet scrubber after the 

existing ESP, installing a DSI with an 

existing ESP, installing SDA with new 

fabric filter, or removing all coal firing 

as potentially available controls. The 

cost effectiveness values of these 

controls are as follows: reducing coal 

usage is a cost savings of $1,868/ton of 

SO2 removed; installing a wet scrubber 

is $5,641/ton of SO2 removed, reducing 

emissions by 1,222 tpy; installing a wet 

scrubber with stack liner is $6,028/ton 

of SO2 removed, reducing emissions by 

1,222 tpy; installing DSI is $8,776/ton of 

SO2 removed, reducing emissions by 

748 tpy; installing an SDA is $16,398/ 

ton of SO2 removed, reducing emissions 

by 1,184 tpy; and removing all coal 

firing is $7,374/ton of SO2 removed, 

reducing emissions by 1,171 tpy. 

WestRock-Fernandina indicated they 

would need until 2024 to fully 

implement the coal reduction option but 

could begin limiting coal usage as early 

as 2022, because the Mill is 

contractually obligated to purchase a set 

amount of coal through 2021. There 

were no energy or non-air quality 

environmental impacts associated with 

the reduction of coal usage. The 

installation of a wet scrubber would 

increase water and electricity usage and 

wastewater generation. The installation 

of a DSI system or an SDA system 

would increase solid waste and 

electricity usage. The No. 7 Power 

Boiler fly ash is currently used in 

cement manufacturing but would have 

to be landfilled if contaminated with 

sorbent. The No. 7 Power Boiler has 

approximately 20 years or more of 

useful life remaining; however, FDEP 

conservatively used a useful life of 30 

years to annualize the costs. FDEP used 

a 3.25 percent interest rate, a 98 percent 

control efficiency for FGD, a 60 percent 

control efficiency for DSI, a 95 percent 

control efficiency for SDA, and a 97 

percent control efficiency for removing 

all coal in the calculations for No. 7 

Power Boiler. 

The No. 4 Recovery Boiler fires black 

liquor solids or No. 2 fuel oil and uses 

natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil for startup. 

No. 5 Recovery Boiler fires black liquor 

solids or No. 6 fuel oil and burns natural 

gas or No. 2 fuel oil for startup only. 

Currently, the SO2 emissions from Nos. 

4 and 5 Recovery Boilers recovery 

boilers shall not exceed 150.0 lb/hour 

based on a 3-hour block average as 

determined by data collected from a 

certified CEMS or other methods 

approved by the Division of Air 

Resource Management. Alternatively, 

Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers may 

comply with the combined SO2

emissions cap which shall not exceed 

300.0 lb/hour based on a 3-hour block 

average as determined by data collected 

from a certified CEMS. The FFA for the 

Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers identified 

the installation of wet scrubber as a 

potential additional control for each 

recovery boiler. FDEP determined that 

the cost effectiveness for the wet 

scrubber is $282,375/ton of SO2

removed for the No. 4 Recovery Boiler 

and $169,425/ton of SO2 removed for 

the No. 5 Recovery Boiler.61 FDEP 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105522 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

WestRock used a 4.75% interest rate instead of 

3.25% (the current bank prime interest rate), used 

a 15-year lifetime for equipment, and included 

property taxes without sufficient justification. 

62FDEP is also proposing for incorporation into 

the SIP an interim coal usage restriction of 250 tpd. 

The 250 tpd coal usage limitation became effective 

on January 1, 2022, and was included in the 2021 

Plan. It was intended as an interim measure that 

would apply until the facility could meet the 125 

tpd usage restriction, which became effective on 

April 24, 2024. The facility is now subject to the 

more restrictive 125 tpd coal cap. 

63See pp. 15–16 of the administrative file of the 

2021 Plan. 

64According to section 7.8.2 of the 2021 Plan, 

WestRock-Fernandina conducted projects totaling 

$15.9 million in capital costs in 2016 and 2017 to 

reduce both actual and allowable SO2 emissions so 

that modeled allowable emissions would 

demonstrate compliance with the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. With these projects, the SO2 emission 

limit for the No. 5 Power Boiler was reduced from 

550 pounds per hour (lb/hr) to 15 lb/hr. In 2020, 

the facility increased the black liquor solids 

content, which helps stabilize operation of the 

recovery boilers, thus, allowing for improved SO2

emissions. 

65The MATS rule is located at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UUUUU. The MATS rule provides the 0.20 

lb/MMBtu SO2 limit as an alternative to meeting an 

emission limit for hydrogen chloride. 

66The permits are located in appendix G–3a1–2 

of the 2021 Plan. 

67The permits are located in appendix G–3c1–2 

of the 2021 Plan and appendix A–2 of the 2024 

Supplement. See section 7.6.4.1 and appendix A– 

2 of the 2024 Supplement. 

68The RBLC is located at: www.epa.gov/catc/ 

ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information. 

69See 85 FR 9666 (February 20, 2020); 40 CFR 

52.520(d). 

determined that WestRock-Fernandina 

would need a minimum of four years to 

install a wet scrubber and concluded 

that there are energy and non-air 

environmental impacts associated with 

the installation of a wet scrubber, 

including increased water and 

electricity usage and wastewater 

generation. The Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery 

Boilers are assumed to have 20 years of 

remaining useful life. 

State Conclusions: For WestRockFernandina’s No. 7 Power Boiler, FDEP 

determined that removing all coal-firing 

or installing a wet scrubber, DSI, or SDA 

are not cost effective, and are therefore 

not necessary for reasonable progress. 

For the No. 7 Power Boiler, FDEP 

determined that reducing coal usage to 

125 tpd is cost effective and is a 

measure that is necessary for reasonable 

progress.62 Thus, FDEP identified the 

permit conditions reflecting this new 

SO2 measure for WestRock-Fernandina’s 

No. 7 Power Boiler in the ‘‘Materials to 

be Incorporated into the SIP’’ sections 63

of the 2021 Plan and appendix A–1 of 

the 2024 Supplement for incorporation 

into the regulatory portion of the Florida 

SIP. These conditions may be found in 

permit number 0890003–072–AC of the 

2021 Plan and 0890003–074–AC and of 

the 2024 Supplement. 

For WestRock-Fernandina’s No. 5 

Power Boiler, FDEP determined that 

neither the installation of a wet 

scrubber—with or without the stack 

liner—nor the installation of a DSI 

system were cost effective. Likewise, 

FDEP determined that installation of 

wet scrubber for Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery 

Boilers was not cost effective. Therefore, 

FDEP determined that existing measures 

at the No. 5 Power Boiler and the Nos. 

4 and 5 Recovery Boilers are necessary 

for reasonable progress. These existing 

measures, contained in permit number 

0890003–046–AC, were already 

incorporated into the SIP through the 

Nassau County Florida SO2 Attainment 

Plan SIP revision approved by EPA on 

July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30749).64 A list of 

the specific conditions included for 

regional haze informational purposes 

may be found in the ‘‘Materials 

Submitted for Informational Purposes 

Only’’ section, in appendix A–6 of the 

2024 Supplement. 

ii. Existing, Effective Control 

Demonstrations: As described in section 

7.6.4.1 of the 2021 Plan, FDEP proposed 

existing SO2 measures as necessary for 

reasonable progress for incorporation 

into the Florida SIP for the affected 

units at the following eight facilities: 

Duke-Crystal River, JEA Northside, 

Mosaic-Bartow, Mosaic-New Wales, 

Mosaic-South Pierce, Nutrien, 

Seminole, and TECO-Big Bend. FDEP 

contends that these sources are 

effectively controlled and are unlikely 

to have additional controls available for 

reasonable progress. 

Regarding Duke-Crystal River, Florida 

is proposing for adoption into the SIP 

permit conditions that require 

compliance with a limit of 0.20 pound 

per million British thermal units (lb/ 

MMBtu) of SO2 for the fossil fuel steam 

generating Unit 4 and Unit 5 in lieu of 

performing a detailed FFA for these 

units. This emission limit is the 

alternative emission limit currently 

applicable to Duke-Crystal River under 

the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) rule.65 Including this emission 

limit in the SIP would also have the 

effect of removing the hydrogen 

chloride MATS compliance option for 

Duke-Crystal River. Florida concluded 

that these units are effectively 

controlled for SO2 emissions and that 

additional reasonable controls are 

unlikely to be found. Therefore, Florida 

is proposing for adoption into the SIP 

permit conditions for the 0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu SO2 emission limitation and 

additional permit conditions that allow 

the citrus combined cycle station Units 

1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B to combust only 

pipeline natural gas.66

Regarding JEA Northside, Florida 

proposed for adoption into the SIP 

permit conditions for Units 1 and 2 that 

include an SO2 limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, 

and the MATS-based SO2 emission limit 

of 0.20 lb/MMBtu.67 Florida is 

proposing both the SO2 limit of 0.15 lb/ 

MMBtu and the SO2 emission limit of 

0.20 lb/MMBtu as reflecting effective 

controls for JEA Northside Units 1 and 

2 because the SO2 emission limit of 0.15 

lb/MMBtu had exemptions during 

period of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. The MATS limit applies 

continuously and has work practice 

standards which apply during startup 

and shutdown. Florida concluded that 

this unit is effectively controlled for SO2

emissions and that additional 

reasonable controls are unlikely to be 

found. Therefore, Florida is proposing 

for incorporation into the SIP permit 

conditions for the 0.20 lb/MMBtu 

emission limitation. 

Regarding Mosaic-Bartow, Florida 

reviewed existing SO2 measures at three 

sulfuric acid plants (SAPs) at the 

facility, Nos. 4 through 6. This facility 

reduced SO2 emissions to bring the 

Hillsborough-Polk nonattainment area 

into attainment for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, including upgrades to the 

catalyst beds. The SO2 generated in 

these systems is catalytically oxidized to 

sulfur trioxide (SO3) over the catalyst 

beds at a rate of 99.7 percent or higher. 

The facility is required to comply with 

a three-unit cap of 1,100 pounds/hour 

on a 24-hour block average as 

determined by continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS). Each SAP at 

the facility is required to meet a limit of 

four pounds (lbs) SO2 per ton of 100 

percent sulfuric acid produced. Florida 

states that this limit is consistent with 

the SO2 best available control 

technology (BACT) determinations for 

sulfur burning, double-absorption 

sulfuric acid plants with cesiumpromoted catalysts at a range of 3.0 to 

4.0 lbs per ton in EPA’s RACT/BACT/ 

LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) database.68

Florida concluded that these units are 

effectively controlled for SO2 emissions 

and that additional reasonable controls 

are unlikely to be found. These SO2

limits are already incorporated into 

Florida’s SIP.69

Regarding Mosaic-New Wales, Florida 

reviewed existing SO2 measures at five 

SAPs at the facility, Nos. 1 through 5. 

This facility also reduced SO2 emissions 

to bring the Hillsborough-Polk 

nonattainment area into attainment for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The facility was 

required to comply with a five-unit SO2


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105523 

70 Id. 

71On February 1, 2023, the FDEP requested that 

Mosaic evaluate whether any additional measures 

were available to reduce SO2 emission from the 

Mosaic-South Pierce facility. See section 7.6.4.1 of 

the 2024 Supplement. 

72The permit is located in appendix A–5 of the 

2024 Supplement. 

73The consent decree entered on February 26, 

2015, is located in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. This consent decree terminated on 

April 3, 2023. 

74See section 7.6.4.1 of the 2024 Supplement. 

75Permit No. 0470002–132–AC, issued on 

September 22, 2022, to Nutrien is located in 

appendix A–4 of the 2024 Supplement. 

76Since submission of the 2021 Plan, Unit 3 at 

TECO-Big Bend retired on April 26, 2023. The 

Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) Acid Rain 

Retired Unit Exemption Form is included in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. For additional 

information regarding the shutdown and demolition 

of Unit 3, see the May 16, 2024 news release from 

TECO titled ‘‘Tampa Electric has Demolished Old 

Chimneys at Big Bend Power Plant’’, available at: 

https://www.tampaelectric.com/mediacenter/2024/ 

Tampa-Electric-has-Demolished-Old-Chimneys-atBig-Bend-Power-Plant/#:∼:text=The%20skyline

%20of%20Apollo%20Beach,new%20

view%20is%20Dramatically%20

different.%E2%80%9D. 

77The permits are located in appendix G–3 of the 

2021 Plan and the permit conditions proposed for 

adoption into the SIP are listed under the 

‘‘Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP’’ section 

in filename ‘‘Final SIP 2021–01 Regional Haze.pdf’’ 

included with the 2021 Plan. 

78The permits are located in appendix G–3h of 

the 2021 Plan and the permit conditions proposed 

for adoption into the SIP are listed under the 

‘‘Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP’’ section 

in filename ‘‘Final SIP 2021–01 Regional Haze.pdf’’ 

included with the 2021 Plan. 

79Table 4–1 provides a summary of the 2011 

baseline emissions inventory for Florida. 

emissions cap of 1,090 lbs per hour on 

a 24-hour block average as determined 

by CEMS. SAP Nos. 1–3 are each 

required to meet an SO2 limit of 3.5 lbs 

per ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid 

produced on a 24-hr rolling average and 

four lbs per ton on a three-hour rolling 

average. SAPs 4 and 5 are each required 

to meet a limit of four lbs per ton of 

sulfuric acid produced. Florida affirms 

that this limit is consistent with the SO2

BACT determinations for sulfur 

burning, double-absorption sulfuric acid 

plants with cesium-promoted catalysts 

which appear in a range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs 

per ton of sulfuric acid produced in 

EPA’s RBLC database. Florida 

concluded that these units are 

effectively controlled for SO2, and 

additional reasonable controls are 

unlikely to be found. These SO2 limits 

are already incorporated into Florida’s 

SIP.70

Regarding Mosaic-South Pierce, FDEP 

requested that the facility evaluate 

whether any additional measures were 

available to reduce SO2.71 Specifically, 

FDEP requested that Mosaic-South 

Pierce complete an FFA for SAPs Nos. 

10 and 11 or demonstrate that those 

units were already effectively controlled 

for SO2. Sulfuric Acid Plants Nos. 10 

and 11 are double absorption sulfuric 

acid systems equipped with two 

absorption towers in series to react SO3

with water to produce sulfuric acid. The 

SO2 generated in a double absorption 

system’s sulfur furnace is catalytically 

oxidized to SO3 over catalyst beds at a 

very high rate (99.7 percent or greater), 

which results in relatively low SO2

emissions as compared to a single 

absorption system. The second bed uses 

a cesium-promoted catalyst, which 

increases the overall SO2-to-SO3

conversion rate. FDEP determined that 

the SAPs Nos. 10 and 11 at MosaicSouth Pierce are effectively controlled 

for SO2 based on a review of EPA’s 

RBLC database which identified the 

combination of dual absorption design 

and cesium-promoted catalysts as BACT 

for sulfur-burning, non-single 

absorption column sulfuric acid plants 

and are therefore unlikely to have 

additional SO2 controls identified as 

part of an FFA. Florida has identified 

permit conditions for incorporation into 

the SIP that prohibit combined SO2

emissions from SAPs 10 and 11 from 

exceeding 750 lbs SO2 per hour on a 24- 

hour block average as determined by 

CEMS.72

Regarding Nutrien, this facility has 

recently completed significant work to 

reduce SO2 emissions to achieve SO2

limits imposed by a consent decree 

entered on February 26, 2015.73 As part 

of the consent decree, Nutrien was 

required to reduce SO2 emissions and 

meet more stringent SO2 emission limits 

at SAPs C, D, E, and F. Nutrien elected 

to permanently shut down SAPs C and 

D in 2014, reducing SO2 emissions from 

these SAPs to zero. On March 31, 2017, 

FDEP issued permit No. 0470002–107– 

AC to Nutrien to complete upgrades on 

SAP E and SAP F, which included 

changing out and augmenting the 

converter catalyst in the SAPs, allowing 

them to meet new SO2 emission limits 

of 2.6 lbs per ton on a three-hour rolling 

average (excluding startups and 

shutdowns) and 2.3 lbs per ton limit on 

a 365-day rolling average (including 

startups and shutdowns), as required by 

the consent decree. Nutrien was 

required to comply with these limits on 

January 1, 2018, for SAP F and January 

1, 2020, for SAP E. Additionally, on 

January 1, 2023, an 840 lbs/hour SO2

limit on a 24-hour block averaging 

period was applied to the combined 

emissions from SAP E and F.74 Florida 

states that these limits are consistent 

with recent BACT determinations made 

for similar double-absorption, sulfurburning SAPs. Florida concluded that 

this unit is effectively controlled for SO2

emissions and that additional 

reasonable controls are unlikely to be 

found. Florida did not identify the 

permit conditions from Permit No. 

0470002–132–AC, issued on September 

22, 2022, for incorporation into the SIP 

because they have already been 

incorporated through Florida’s 

Supplemental SSM SIP as approved by 

EPA on August 4, 2023 (88 FR 51702).75

Regarding TECO-Big Bend, this 

facility has accepted the MATS SO2

limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for fossil fuel 

steam generators No. 3 (EU003) 76 and 

No. 4 (EU004). This emission limit is 

the alternative emission limit currently 

applicable to TECO-Big Bend under the 

MATS rule. Including this emission 

limit in the SIP would also have the 

effect of removing the hydrogen 

chloride MATS compliance option for 

TECO-Big Bend. Florida concluded that 

this unit is effectively controlled for SO2

emissions and that additional 

reasonable controls are unlikely to be 

found. Therefore, Florida identified 

permit conditions with these SO2 limits 

for Unit 4 at TECO-Big Bend for 

incorporation into the Florida SIP.77

Regarding Seminole, this facility 

accepted the MATS SO2 limit of 0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu for the steam electric generator 

No. 1 (EU001) and No. 2 (EU002) in the 

same manner as discussed with TECOBig Bend in the preceding paragraph. 

Florida concluded that this unit is 

effectively controlled for SO2 emissions 

and that additional reasonable controls 

are unlikely to be found. Therefore, 

Florida identified permit conditions 

with these SO2 limits for incorporation 

into the Florida SIP.78

Section I.B of the TSD to this 

proposed rulemaking provides a more 

detailed summary of the State’s 

assessment of Florida’s FFAs and 

existing effective controls, and the 

associated emissions control measures 

proposed for incorporation into the 

Florida SIP. 

c. Documentation of Technical Basis: 

With respect to emissions information 

documentation pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iii), section 4 of the 2021 

Plan explains the State’s use of 

emissions inventories to develop the 

plan with additional documentation 

provided in appendix B. Florida, 

through VISTAS, developed a 2011 

statewide base year emissions inventory 

which was used to project emissions out 

to 2028, the end of the second planning 

period.79 FDEP also evaluated emissions 

data from 2017, the year of the most 

recent triennial emissions data available 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105524 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

80FDEP also included the shutdown of Unit 3 of 

CD McIntosh in section 7.6.4.1, ‘‘Effective Controls 

Analyses,’’ of the 2021 Plan. 

81Florida’s air quality rules are available at 

https://floridadep.gov/air/air-business-planning/ 

content/current-air-rules. 

82MANE–VU refers to the emission reduction 

measures identified in other states as being 

necessary to make reasonable progress as ‘‘Asks.’’ 

The MANE–VU Ask to states outside of the MANE– 

VU Region is available at https://otcair.org/manevu/ 

Upload/Publication/Formal%20Actions/MANEVU%20Inter-Regional%20Ask%20Final%208-25- 

2017.pdf. 

at the time of the development of the 

2021 Plan. Statewide emissions from the 

2014 and 2017 National Emissions 

Inventories (NEIs) are provided in tables 

13–11, 13–12, and 13–13 of the 2021 

Plan for PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, 

respectively. 

With respect to cost and engineering 

information documentation pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), section 7.8 of 

the Haze Plan details the State’s analysis 

of the FFAs for Foley, JEA Northside, 

and WestRock-Fernandina located in 

appendix G which evaluated the four 

factors, including the cost of compliance 

factor, and provided detailed cost 

calculations for potential new control 

measures assessed as part of the 

engineering analyses. In addition, 

section 7.6.4.1 of the 2021 Plan 

describes the State’s analysis of seven 

sources with existing, effective SO2

measures: Duke-Crystal River, JEA 

Northside (Units 1 and 2), MosaicBartow, Mosaic-New Wales, Nutrien, 

Seminole, and TECO-Big Bend 80 and 

the 2024 Supplement summarizes 

existing, effective SO2 measures at 

Mosaic-South Pierce in section 7.6.4.1 

on pages 5–6 of the narrative and in 

appendix B–2 of the 2024 Supplement. 

With respect to monitoring 

information documentation pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), the State 

assessed baseline (2000–2004), current 

(2014–2018), and natural visibility 

conditions for Florida’s Class I areas in 

section 2 of the 2021 Plan with 

supporting information located in 

appendix C. 

With respect to modeling information 

documentation pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iii), sections 5 and 6 of the 

2021 Plan describe the modeling 

methods used to develop the plan with 

additional documentation provided in 

appendix E and results of the RPG 

modeling in section 8 of the plan. 

Appendix D contains AoI analyses 

documentation. Section I.E of the TSD 

to this proposed rulemaking provides a 

more detailed summary of the State’s 

assessment of documentation of the 

technical basis for the 2021 Plan under 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

d. Assessment of the Five Additional 

Factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv): 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv), Florida considered each 

of the five additional factors in 

developing the State’s LTS and 

evaluated their relevancy for the second 

period. With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), FDEP assessed 

emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI, in the 

development of the State’s 2011 

baseline and 2028 projected emission 

inventories. The impact of these existing 

and on the way air pollution control 

programs are reflected in the 2028 RPGs 

for the Florida Class I areas, except for 

the measures listed in section 8.2 of the 

2021 Plan. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), FDEP evaluated 

measures in the State designed to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities in section 7.9.2 of the 2021 

Plan. Florida’s rules for air quality 

control include requirements to prevent 

fugitive dust from becoming airborne 

and also limit the opacity of fugitive 

emissions to equal to or less than 20 

percent. The requirements of Florida 

rule 62–296.320, F.A.C., General 

Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards, 

include preventive measures for 

construction activities to prevent 

fugitive dust from becoming airborne.81

FDEP also noted that fine soils were a 

relatively minor contributor to visibility 

impairment at the Class I areas in 

Florida from the baseline period of 

2000–2004 through to the recent period 

of 2014–2018, as discussed in section 

2.4.2 and shown in figures 2–1 through 

2–5 (2000–2004 period); figures 2–6 

through 2–8 (2009–2013 period); and 

figures 2–9 through 2–13 (2014–2018 

period) of the 2021 Plan. Thus, any fine 

soil contributions to regional haze from 

Florida construction activities are 

relatively minor. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), FDEP discussed 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules in section 8.2.2 of the 2021 

Plan, which describes existing and 

planned source retirements by 2028. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), FDEP explained that 

particulate organic matter (POM) is the 

second most important contributor to 

fine particle mass and light extinction 

on the 20 percent most impaired and 20 

percent clearest days in Florida Class I 

areas during the baseline period. POM 

and elemental carbon (a component of 

PM2.5) are associated with wildfires, 

prescribed wildland fires, agricultural 

burning, and biogenic emissions from 

vegetation. Elemental carbon is a 

relatively minor contributor to visibility 

impairment at the Class I areas in 

Florida as discussed in section 2.4.2 and 

demonstrated in figures 2–1 through 2– 

5. Florida has a certified Smoke 

Management Plan (SMP) which was 

most recently updated in 2013. The 

Florida Forest Service operates a burn 

authorization program that considers 

the potential for smoke from the burn 

impacting smoke sensitive receptors 

(e.g., airports, roads, hospitals, and 

urban areas). The SMP contains 

provisions to help minimize air 

pollutant and regional haze impacts. 

Florida’s SMP may be found in 

appendix G–4 of the 2021 Plan for 

reference only. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), in section 7 of the 

2021 Plan, FDEP evaluates the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS in development of 

the 2028 RPGs for the Florida Class I 

areas. Section 7.2 of the 2021 Plan 

identifies control measures included in 

the VISTAS 2028 emissions inventory. 

The 2028 RPGs are identified in section 

8 of the 2021 Plan and section 8.2.2 

includes source retirements and 

replacements for Florida sources. 

Section I.D of the TSD to this proposed 

rulemaking provides a more detailed 

summary of the State’s assessment of 

the five additional factors in 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv). 

e. Interstate Consultation: FDEP 

consulted with states and RPOs that 

identified Florida sources as impacting 

those states’ (or states within the RPOs’) 

Class I areas. FDEP consulted with the 

two states with one or more sources 

exceeding Florida’s PSAT threshold at 

one or more of Florida’s Class I areas. 

i. State/RPOs Requesting Consultation 

with Florida: 

a. MANE–VU’s Ask: The following 

summarizes the conclusions of 

consultation related to the MANE–VU 

Ask 82 for Florida. Section I.F of the TSD 

to this rulemaking provides a more 

detailed summary of the State’s 

assessment of Florida’s interstate 

consultation pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(ii). 

In a letter dated August 25, 2017, 

MANE–VU requested that 14 states, 

including Florida, address the ‘‘Asks’’ 

outlined in the letter on the basis that 

Florida sources exceeded the visibility 

impact threshold set by MANE–VU for 

at least one Class I area in the MANE– 

VU region. On October 16, 2017, 

MANE–VU initiated consultations with 

the states including Florida. Florida 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105525 

83None of Florida’s sources exceeded the one 

percent PSAT nitrate emissions threshold. 

84Regarding Plant Bowen, on August 11, 2022, 

Georgia submitted a final regional haze plan for the 

second planning period which included an FFA for 

Plant Bowen that concluded existing SO2 measures 

for Units 1–4 at the facility are necessary for 

reasonable progress for the second period. EPA 

approved Georgia’s regional haze plan on November 

21, 2024. See 89 FR 92038. Kentucky has not yet 

submitted a final regional haze plan. 

85The December 7, 2020, letter from the Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management 

confirming the lowered SO2 emission rates can be 

found in appendix F–1c of the 2021 Plan. 

86The State used the AoI process because it 

identifies the largest sources with potential 

visibility impacts to Class I areas and then used 

sophisticated photochemical source apportionment 

modeling to identify specific sources for control 

evaluations. See also 2019 Guidance, pp. 12–13. 

87Florida’s statewide emissions of SO2 and NOX

decreased during the period from 2011 to 2017 from 

172,701 tpy SO2 to 78,173 tpy SO2 and decreased 

from 608,366 to 414,369 tpy NOX. See tables 4–1, 

13–12, and 13–13 of the 2021 Plan. 

88 In appendix C–2 of the 2024 Supplement, Foley 

stated in a letter dated May 22, 2024, that the mill 

has ceased production operations as a pulp and 

paper mill. 

disagreed with MANE–VU’s assertion 

that Florida’s statewide emissions are 

impacting visibility at MANE–VU Class 

I areas. Florida’s viewpoints are 

reflected in the January 27, 2018, letter 

from VISTAS to MANE–VU. To resolve 

the disagreement, Florida sent a 

response letter on January 19, 2018, to 

MANE–VU and noted several 

disagreements with MANE–VU’s 

analysis. Florida documented the State’s 

responses and viewpoints with respect 

to the MANE–VU Ask in section 10 and 

appendices F–4 of the 2021 Plan. 

Florida believes that the State fulfilled 

the consultation requirements under 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) by the State’s 

participation in a series of five MANE– 

VU consultation calls held during the 

period from October 20, 2017, to March 

23, 2018, and by the State’s documented 

responses to MANE–VU. Thus, FDEP 

determined that no further action is 

required under the RHR to address 

MANE–VU’s requests. 

b. Georgia’s Request for Consultation 

with Florida: 

In a letter dated November 24, 2020, 

the Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division requested that FDEP share 

Florida’s FFA for its sources that impact 

Georgia’s Class I areas—Cohutta, 

Okefenokee, and Wolf Island. Georgia, 

through VISTAS analysis, identified five 

Florida sources that had greater than 

one percent sulfate impact on at least 

one of Georgia’s Class I areas,83

including Nutrien, Foley, WestRockFernandina, JEA Northside, and 

Seminole. As described above, the Haze 

Plan includes FFAs or existing effective 

control analyses for these five facilities 

and identifies permit conditions that are 

incorporated into Florida’s SIP or are 

proposed for incorporation into the SIP. 

The permit conditions proposed for 

incorporation are identified in the 

‘‘Materials to be Incorporated into the 

SIP’’ sections of the 2021 Plan, the 2024 

Supplement, and the Second 2024 

Supplement for incorporation into the 

regulatory portion of the Florida SIP. 

Florida responded to Georgia in a 

letter dated December 18, 2020, 

acknowledging that the Florida sources 

identified by Georgia met Florida’s 

selection criteria and would be 

evaluated in FFAs. 

ii. Other States with Sources 

Contributing to Regional Haze at 

Florida’s Class I Areas: 

Consultation with other states with 

sources contributing to regional haze at 

Florida’s Class I areas is discussed in 

section 10 and appendix F of the 2021 

Plan. As listed in table 7–26 of the 2021 

Plan, Florida requested an FFA of two 

sources in two other states because 

these sources exceeded the State’s 

sulfate PSAT threshold at one or more 

of Florida’s Class I areas: Georgia Power 

Company—Plant Bowen (Plant Bowen) 

in Georgia and Tennessee Valley 

Authority–Shawnee Fossil Plant (TVAShawnee) in Kentucky. At the time of 

plan submission, FDEP documented in 

section 10 of the 2021 Plan that the 

State had not yet received a response 

from Georgia related to Plant Bowen or 

from Kentucky for TVA-Shawnee.84

Additionally, FDEP consulted with 

Alabama on Sanders Lead Co. since that 

facility had initially ranked greater than 

Florida’s one percent threshold for 

PSAT contribution. Alabama provided 

additional information in a letter 

showing that this facility’s recent SO2

emissions have significantly reduced 

from the initial 2028 projections.85 In 

the 2021 plan, FDEP stated that a 

scrubber went online in late 2019 and 

reduced the worst-case potential 

emissions from 7,961.1 tpy to 

approximately 1,400 tpy of SO2 which 

brought Sanders Lead Co. well below 

the one percent PSAT. Therefore, 

Alabama did not select the facility for a 

control evaluation. 

3. EPA Evaluation: EPA reviewed 

Florida’s FFAs, determinations of 

controls necessary for reasonable 

progress, and submitted permit 

conditions. Based on this review, EPA 

proposes to determine that Florida’s 

LTS meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) through (iv). 

a. Source Selection Criteria: EPA 

proposes to find that Florida has 

satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) with respect to its 

description of source selection criteria, 

the outcomes of the source selection 

process, and the basis for using the AoI 

and PSAT thresholds and other criteria 

to select sources. Specifically, Florida 

provided: appendix B, which details 

how the State, in conjunction with 

VISTAS, created emissions inventories 

relied upon by the State for its Haze 

Plan; appendix C, which provides 

monitoring and meteorological data 

used to support selection of sources; 

and appendix D, which provides 

analyses supporting the AoI approach. 

In addition, FDEP summarized in the 

2021 Plan the specific data that Florida 

used for its source selection analyses, 

including the AoI and PSAT analyses 

and results. FDEP followed EPA’s 2019 

Guidance recommendations to use 2028 

emissions projections to select sources 

and checked the accuracy of its 2028 

estimations by electing to evaluate 

differences between 2017–2019 

emissions and 2028 emissions 

projections in section 7.6.5 of the 2021 

Plan. 

EPA proposes to find that Florida 

captured a reasonable set of in-state 

sources contributing to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas for the 

following reasons. AoI and PSAT are 

acceptable and well-established 

methods for selecting sources for a 

control analysis and they enable the 

identification of the sources that have 

the largest impacts on visibility at Class 

I areas in Florida and neighboring 

states.86 Using a five percent AoI 

threshold and a one percent PSAT 

threshold, the State identified twelve 

Florida sources for a control evaluation 

that are projected to have the highest 

impact on visibility at both in-state and 

out-of-state Class I areas at the end of 

the second planning period. 

Additionally, statewide SO2

emissions are expected to decrease in 

the second planning period from 2017 

levels of 78,173 tpy of SO2 to projected 

2028 levels of 66,979 tpy of SO2

(approximately a 14 percent reduction), 

and statewide NOX emissions are 

expected to decrease from 2017 levels of 

414,369 tpy NOX to projected 2028 

levels of 265,453 tpy NOX

(approximately a 36 percent 

reduction).87 Additional emissions 

reductions which have not been 

reflected in the 2028 emissions 

projections and 2028 RPGs include the 

following: CD McIntosh, which 

permanently shut down Unit 3 in 2021; 

Foley, which had permanently ceased 

operations by May 2024; 88 OUC 

Stanton, which announced that it will 

end coal-firing by the end of 2027; and 

WestRock—Panama City, which 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105526 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

89See visibility data for the 20 percent most 

impaired days data from table 8–1 and 2–6 of the 

2021 Plan. Percentage of progress toward natural 

conditions = [((2014–2018 IMPROVE data)¥(2028 

RPG))/((2014–2018 IMPROVE data)¥(Natural 

visibility conditions))] × 100. Example calculation 

for Chassahowitzka [(17.41¥16.79)/(17.41¥9.03)] × 

100 = 7.4 percent. 

90The 2018–2022 IMPROVE data for the 20 

percent most impaired days was obtained from 

under the header ‘‘Means for Impairment Metric:’’. 

The IMPROVE data includes visibility monitoring 

data for each Class I area. This data was filtered for 

each Class I area, listed as ‘‘CHAS1’’ 

(Chassahowitzka), ‘‘EVER1’’ (Everglades), and 

‘‘SAMA1’’ (St. Marks), respectively, (in column 

‘‘A’’, titled ‘‘site’’). Then data was filtered for the 

years 2018 through 2022 (using column ‘‘B’’ titled 

‘‘year’’). These data points were then filtered for the 

20 percent most impaired days, indicated by ‘‘90’’ 

(in column ‘‘C’’ titled ‘‘impairment_Group’’). The 

resulting data points for each Florida Class I area 

within the ‘‘haze_dv’’ column ‘‘AK’’, corresponding 

to each of the five years, were averaged to 

determine the 20 percent most impaired days for 

the 2018–2022 five-year period. The 2018–2022 

IMPROVE data for Florida’s Class I areas are: 17.03 

deciviews (Chassahowitzka), 14.37 deciviews 

(Everglades), and 16.02 deciviews (St. Marks). 

91The 2014–2018 IMPROVE data was provided 

by Florida in table 2–6 of the 2021 Plan. 

92Percentage of progress toward natural 

conditions = [((2014–2018 IMPROVE data)¥(2018– 

2022 IMPROVE data))/((2014–2018 IMPROVE 

data)¥(Natural visibility conditions))] x100. 

Example calculation for Chassahowitzka: 

[(17.41¥17.03)/(17.41¥9.03)] × 100 = 4.5 percent. 

93See also section I.B of the TSD for additional 

details regarding Florida’s FFAs. 

94See pp. 8–14 under ‘‘Appendix A’’ of 

‘‘Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP’’ 

contained within filename ‘‘SIP 2024–01 Part II SIP 

Regional Haze Amendment Supplement October 28 

2024.pdf’’ included with the Second 2024 

Supplement which is in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

95The associated permits documenting proposed 

conditions and limits in the SIP may be found in 

appendix G–3 of the 2021 Plan. 

permanently ceased operations in June 

2022. Specific to second planning 

period visibility improvement, visibility 

conditions in Florida’s Class I areas in 

2028 are estimated to improve since the 

2014–2018 period by 0.62 deciview 

(Chassahowitzka), 0.95 deciview 

(Everglades), and 0.96 deciview (St. 

Marks). When considered in relation to 

the amount of visibility improvement 

needed to reach natural conditions 

starting from the 2014–2018 period, 

these projected visibility improvements 

expected during the second planning 

period represent approximately the 

following amount of progress: 7.40 

percent improvement (Chassahowitzka), 

13.70 percent improvement 

(Everglades), and 11.62 percent 

improvement (St. Marks).89 Based upon 

a comparison of the most recently 

available 20 percent most impaired days 

IMPROVE data (2018–2022) 90 to the 20 

percent most impaired days data from 

the end of the first planning period 

(2014–2018),91 in the first four years of 

the second planning period Florida’s 

Class I areas have already achieved the 

following amount of additional progress 

towards natural conditions: 4.5 percent 

(Chassahowitzka), 8.1 percent 

(Everglades), and 16.59 percent (St. 

Marks).92 Also, Florida is appropriately 

focused on controlling point source SO2

emissions based on data showing 

ammonium sulfate is the dominant 

visibility impairing pollutant at the 

Florida Class I areas.

b. Consideration of the Four CAA 

Factors: 

i. FFAs: EPA proposes to find that 

FDEP’s reasonable progress 

determinations and conclusions for the 

selected sources are reasonable and that 

Florida submissions satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) as 

discussed below.93

a. Foley: Regarding Foley, EPA 

proposes to find FDEP’s determinations 

of measures that are necessary for 

reasonable progress are reasonable as 

described below. 

The State evaluated available and 

technically feasible SO2 controls based 

on, where applicable, estimated values 

of capital costs, annualized costs, and 

cost per ton of emission reductions, 

consistent with recommendations in the 

Cost Manual. 

For the No. 1 Power Boiler, the State 

evaluated adding a wet scrubber with an 

estimated cost of $13,547/ton, and DSI 

with an estimated cost of $21,727/ton 

and determined that these controls are 

not cost effective. 

FDEP determined that existing 

measures are necessary for reasonable 

progress. Specifically, the No. 1 Power 

Boiler shall fire only natural gas except 

for periods of natural gas curtailment, 

pipeline disruptions, or physical mill 

problems that otherwise prevent the 

firing of natural gas in this unit. For 

future additions of No. 6 fuel oil to the 

common tank, the maximum sulfur 

content shall be 1.02 percent by weight 

with compliance determined by 

maintaining records of fuel deliveries, 

analytical methods, and results of 

analysis. Tall oil is no longer an 

authorized fuel. 

For the No. 1 Power Boiler, EPA 

proposes to find that FDEP’s 

determination to impose limitations for 

existing measures is reasonable and 

necessary for reasonable progress. 

For No. 1 Bark Boiler, as the unit was 

already equipped with a wet venturi 

scrubber, Florida considered operating 

scenarios to achieve additional SO2

emissions reductions, and determined 

that running the wet venturi scrubber 

with requirements on minimum pH and 

flow rate whenever a LVHC–NCG or oil 

is fired is cost-effective and necessary 

for reasonable progress, resulting in a 51 

percent reduction in SO2 emissions 

annually. EPA proposes to find that 

FDEP’s determination to require more 

frequent operation of the wet venturi 

scrubber for the No. 1 Bark Boiler is 

reasonable and that this measure is 

necessary for reasonable progress. 

Additionally, EPA proposes to find that 

FDEP’s determination to impose the 

low-sulfur fuel restrictions for the No. 1 

Bark Boiler that are similar to the 

restrictions proposed for No. 1 Power 

Boiler (except the No. 1 Bark Boiler is 

permitted to burn wood in addition to 

natural gas as the primary fuel type) is 

reasonable and that these measures are 

necessary for reasonable progress. 

For the recovery boilers, the State 

evaluated wet scrubbers with estimated 

costs of $7,779/ton for Recovery 

Furnace No. 2; $5,197/ton for Recovery 

Furnace No. 3; and $6,587/ton for 

Recovery Furnace No. 4. Florida 

determined that these measures were 

not cost effective, but proposed existing 

measures as necessary for reasonable 

progress. EPA proposes to find that 

FDEP’s determination to impose 

requirements for the following existing 

measures—black liquor as the primary 

fuel; natural gas and liquid fuels as 

supplements to recovery operations; a 

maximum sulfur content of 1.02 percent 

for purchased no. 6 fuel oil; and a SO2

emissions cap of 3,200 tons per 

consecutive 12 operating months as 

measured by CEMS—is reasonable and 

that these measures are necessary for 

reasonable progress. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to 

incorporate into the Florida SIP the 

permit conditions from permit number 

1230001–121–AC that are identified in 

the ‘‘Materials to be Incorporated into 

the SIP’’ section of the Second 2024 

Supplement.94

b. JEA Northside: Regarding JEA 

Northside Unit 3,95 EPA proposes to 

find that FDEP’s determinations 

regarding applicable controls for this 

source at JEA Northside are reasonable. 

The State evaluated available and 

technically feasible SO2 controls that 

were based on, where applicable, 

estimated values of capital costs, 

annualized costs, and cost per ton of 

emission reductions, consistent with 

recommendations in the Cost Manual. 

For NGS Unit 3, EPA proposes to find 

FDEP’s determination that switching to 

lower sulfur No. 6 fuel oil at $3,053/ton 

of SO2 removed is necessary for 

reasonable progress is reasonable. Thus, 

EPA proposes to incorporate into the 

Florida SIP the permit conditions from 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105527 

96See p. 13 under ‘‘JEA Northside Unit 3 . . .’’ 

under ‘‘Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP’’ 

in filename ‘‘Final SIP 2021–01 Regional Haze.pdf’’ 

included with the 2021 Plan which is in the docket 

for this rulemaking. These permit conditions are 

also summarized in section 7.8.1.1.5 of the 2021 

Plan. 

97Existing measures for the No. 7 Power Boiler 

can be found in section 7.8.2.1.5, Summary of 

Findings for WestRock-Fernandina Beach No.7 

Power Boiler (EU15), of the 2021 Plan and section 

7.8.2.5.5, Summary of Findings for No.7 Power 

Boiler, of the 2024 Supplement. 

98See pp. 15–16 under ‘‘WestRock Fernandina 

Beach Mill . . .’’ under ‘‘Materials to be 

Incorporated into the SIP’’ in filename ‘‘Final SIP 

2021–01 Regional Haze.pdf’’ included with the 

2021 Plan which is in the docket for this 

rulemaking. These permit conditions are also 

summarized in section 7.8.2.1.5 of the 2021 Plan. 

99See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017); 40 CFR 

52.520(d). 

100See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file 

that is included in the docket for this proposed 

action. 

101See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file 

that is included in the docket for this proposed 

action. 

permit number 0310045–057–AC that 

are listed under ‘‘Materials to be 

Incorporated into the SIP’’ section of the 

2021 Plan.96

c. WestRock-Fernandina: EPA 

proposes to find FDEP’s determinations 

regarding applicable controls for the 

sources at WestRock-Fernandina are 

reasonable. The State evaluated 

available and technically feasible SO2

controls based on, where applicable, 

estimated values of capital costs, 

annualized costs, and cost per ton of 

emission reductions, consistent with 

recommendations in the Cost Manual. 

Regarding the No. 7 Power Boiler, 

FDEP evaluated removing coal as a fuel 

($7,374/ton), reducing coal usage (cost 

savings $1,868/ton), FGD without and 

with a stack liner ($5,641/ton and 

$6,028/ton, respectively), DSI ($8,776/ 

ton), and SDA ($16,398/ton). EPA 

proposes to find FDEP’s determination 

for the No. 7 Power Boiler that reducing 

coal usage to 125 tpd is cost-effective is 

reasonable, and proposes to find that 

reducing coal usage is necessary for 

reasonable progress for the No. 7 Power 

Boiler.97 Therefore, EPA proposes to 

incorporate into the Florida SIP the 

permit conditions from permit number 

0890003–072–AC that are listed under 

the ‘‘Materials to be Incorporated into 

the SIP’’ section of the 2021 Plan; 98 and 

the permit condition from permit 

number 0890003–074–AC and listed in 

appendix A–1 of the 2024 Supplement. 

Regarding the No. 5 Power Boiler, 

FDEP evaluated a wet scrubber system 

without and with a stack liner 

($285,615/ton and $298,499/ton, 

respectively) and DSI ($277,093/ton). 

For the Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers, 

FDEP evaluated a wet scrubber system 

at $282,375/ton and $169,425/ton, 

respectively. EPA proposes to find 

FDEP’s determination that existing SO2

measures at the No. 5 Power Boiler and 

the Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers 

previously approved into the SIP 99 are 

necessary for reasonable progress is 

reasonable. 

ii. Existing, Effective Control 

Demonstrations: 

EPA proposes to find that certain 

existing SO2 measures at the affected 

units of the eight facilities evaluated for 

existing, effective control 

demonstrations are necessary for 

reasonable progress, and thus, EPA 

proposes to include these measures in 

the SIP. 

EPA proposes to find that FDEP’s 

proposed adoption of the 0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu MATS limit for the fossil fuel 

steam generating Unit 4 and Unit 5 at 

Duke-Crystal River and the permit 

requirements that allow the citrus 

combined cycle station Units 1A, 1B, 

2A, and 2B to combust only pipeline 

natural gas is reasonable. The 2019 

Guidance provides several scenarios in 

which EPA believes it may be 

reasonable for a state not to select a 

particular source for further analysis. 

One such scenario is applicable to 

Duke-Crystal River—a coal-fired EGU 

that has add-on FGD and meets the 

applicable alternative SO2 emission 

limit of 0.2 lb/MMBtu in the MATS 

rule. The 2019 Guidance states that it is 

unlikely that an analysis of control 

measures for a source already equipped 

with a scrubber and meeting a 0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu limit or having fuel combustion 

units that is restricted to combust only 

pipeline natural gas per enforceable 

requirements would conclude that even 

more stringent control of SO2 is 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

See 2019 Guidance at 23. 

EPA evaluated FGD control efficiency 

data at Units 4 and 5 at Duke-Crystal 

River and calculated that the existing 

FGD systems routinely achieve 96.2– 

98.9 percent yearly average SO2 removal 

efficiencies based on 2017–2023 data 

during periods when coal is one of the 

fuel sources consumed, with a sevenyear average (2017–2023) SO2 removal 

efficiencies of 97.0 and 96.8 percent, 

respectively.100 Therefore, for DukeCrystal River’s Units 4 and 5, EPA 

proposes to find it reasonable that an 

FFA would likely result in the 

conclusion that no further SO2

emissions controls (including FGD 

upgrades) are necessary for reasonable 

progress. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

find that FDEP’s determination that 

these existing SO2 measures are 

necessary for reasonable progress and 

must be adopted into the SIP is 

reasonable. 

EPA proposes to find as reasonable 

FDEP’s determination that an SO2 limit 

of 0.15 lb/MMBtu in combination with 

the MATS-based SO2 emission limit of 

0.20 lb/MMBtu at CFB Boilers 1 and 2 

at JEA Northside demonstrate existing, 

effective SO2 measures for these units. 

Regarding FGD control efficiencies at 

CFB Boilers 1 and 2 JEA Northside, EPA 

evaluated data from 2017–2023 and 

calculated that the existing FGD systems 

routinely achieve 94.8 to 96.6 percent 

yearly average SO2 removal efficiencies 

when consuming coal, having sevenyear average (2017–2023) SO2 removal 

efficiencies of 95.8 percent.101

Therefore, EPA proposes to find FDEP’s 

determination that an FFA would likely 

result in the conclusion that no further 

SO2 emissions controls (including FGD 

upgrades) is reasonable and that these 

measures are necessary for reasonable 

progress. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

find that the proposed emissions limits 

are necessary for reasonable progress 

and must be adopted into the SIP. 

EPA proposes to find as reasonable 

FDEP’s determination that MosaicBartow’s SAPs 4, 5, and 6 have existing, 

effective controls. Currently, these units 

use dual absorption process with 

cesium catalyst to control SO2 emissions 

and restrictions in the SIP to limit the 

three SAPs at the facility to four lbs/ton 

of 100 percent sulfuric acid produced, 

which is consistent with controls 

identified in EPA’s RBLC. In addition, 

the facility has a three-unit cap at 1,100 

lbs/hour on a 24-hour block average and 

had recent upgrades to reduce SO2

emissions. Thus, EPA proposes to find 

FDEP’s determination that SAPs 4, 5, 

and 6 are effectively controlled 

reasonable, and that an FFA would 

likely result in the conclusion that no 

further SO2 emissions controls these 

measures are necessary for reasonable 

progress. 

EPA proposes to find that FDEP’s 

determination is reasonable that existing 

SO2 measures at Mosaic-New Wales’ 

SAPs 1–5, which use dual absorption 

process with cesium-promoted catalyst, 

constitute existing, effective SO2

controls. The combination of the dual 

absorption design and the cesiumpromoted catalysts represents BACT for 

sulfur-burning, non-single absorption 

column SAPs in accordance with the 

RBLC. Current restrictions in the SIP 

limit the Nos. 1–3 SAPs to 3.5 lbs/ton 

of 100 percent sulfuric acid produced 

on a 24-hr rolling average and four lbs/ 

ton of sulfuric acid produced on a threehour rolling average, while SAPs 4 and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105528 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

102See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file 

that is included in the docket for this proposed 

action. 

103The Retired Unit Exemption Form for TECO 

Big Bend Unit 3 is included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

104See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file 

that is included in the docket for this proposed 

action. 

5 are each required to meet a limit of 4.0 

lbs/ton of sulfuric acid produced. In 

addition, the facility has a five-unit cap 

at 1,090 lbs/hour on a 24-hour block 

average. Thus, EPA proposes to find 

FDEP’s determination reasonable that 

SAPs 1–5 have effective SO2 control 

measures for Mosaic-New Wales, and 

that an FFA would likely result in the 

conclusion that no further SO2

emissions controls are necessary for 

reasonable progress. 

EPA proposes to find that FDEP’s 

determination is reasonable that existing 

SO2 measures at Mosaic-South Pierce’s 

SAPs 10 and 11, which use dual 

absorption process with cesiumpromoted catalyst, constitute existing 

effective SO2 controls. The combination 

of the dual absorption design and the 

cesium-promoted catalysts represents 

BACT for sulfur-burning, non-single 

absorption column SAPs in accordance 

with the RBLC. Current restrictions in 

the SIP impose a 750 lbs/hour SO2 limit 

on a 24-hour block average. Thus, EPA 

proposes to find FDEP’s determination 

reasonable that Mosaic-South Pierce’s 

SAPs 10 and 11 have effective SO2

control measures, and that an FFA 

would likely result in the conclusion 

that no further SO2 emissions controls 

these measures are necessary for 

reasonable progress. 

EPA proposes to find that FDEP’s 

determination that Nutrien’s SAPs E 

and F have existing effective controls for 

SO2 is reasonable. Nutrien’s SAPs E and 

F currently use dual absorption process 

with cesium catalyst. Current 

restrictions in the SIP impose SO2

emission limits at 2.6 lbs/ton, threehour rolling average; 2.3 lbs/ton, 365- 

day rolling average, which applies 

during periods of shutdown and startup; 

and 840 lbs/hour on a 24-hour block 

averaging period. The facility elected to 

complete upgrades on SAP E and SAP 

F, which included changing out and 

augmenting the converter catalyst in the 

SAPs to meet the limits. EPA proposes 

to find that the State adequately 

demonstrates that Nutrien’s SAPs E and 

F are effectively controlled, and that an 

FFA would likely result in the 

conclusion that no further SO2

emissions controls are necessary for 

reasonable. 

EPA proposes to find that FDEP’s 

determination that TECO-Big Bend has 

existing effective controls for SO2 for 

Unit 4 is reasonable. TECO-Big Bend’s 

SO2 emissions are limited by the MATS 

limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu which FDEP is 

proposing to incorporate into the SIP. 

Regarding FGD control efficiencies at 

Unit 4 at TECO-Big Bend, EPA 

evaluated data from 2017–2023 for Unit 

4 and calculated that the existing FGD 

system routinely achieves 92.2–97.1 

percent yearly average SO2 removal 

efficiencies during periods when coal is 

one of the fuel sources consumed, with 

a seven-year average (2017–2023) SO2

removal efficiency of 95.8 percent.102 As 

mentioned above, Unit 3 at TECO-Big 

Bend was permanently retired from 

electric generation service on April 26, 

2023, and therefore, Florida’s 

demonstration of existing, effective 

controls is no longer relevant and no 

further action is required by EPA.103

Therefore, EPA proposes to find FDEP’s 

determination that TECO-Big Bend Unit 

4 is effectively controlled is reasonable, 

and that an FFA would likely result in 

the conclusion that no further SO2

emissions controls (including FGD 

upgrades) are necessary. 

Lastly, EPA proposes to find that 

FDEP’s determination that Seminole has 

existing effective controls for SO2 for 

steam electric generators Nos. 1 and 2 is 

reasonable. The MATS SO2 limit of 0.20 

lb/MMBtu applies to the Seminole 

facility, and Florida identified this 

emission limit for incorporation into the 

SIP. Regarding FGD control efficiencies 

at Unit Nos. 1 and 2 at Seminole during 

periods when coal is one of the fuel 

sources consumed, EPA evaluated data 

from 2017–2023 and calculated that the 

existing FGD systems routinely achieve 

96.5–97.3 percent yearly average SO2

removal efficiencies, with a seven-year 

average (2017–2023) SO2 removal 

efficiency of 96.8 percent.104 Therefore, 

EPA proposes to find FDEP 

determination reasonable that Seminole 

Unit Nos. 1 and 2 are effectively 

controlled, and that an FFA would 

likely result in the conclusion that no 

further SO2 emissions controls 

(including FGD upgrades) are necessary. 

c. Documentation of Technical Basis: 

With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), 

EPA proposes to find that Florida 

adequately documented cost, 

engineering, emissions, modeling, and 

monitoring information to determine the 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress for the following 

reasons. With regard to emissions 

information, as required by the RHR, the 

State included the required years of the 

most recent triennial emissions 

inventory (2017) and the most recent 

annual SO2 emissions data for specific 

sources (2019) available at the time of 

the development of the 2021 Plan. FDEP 

provided actual emissions inventory 

data for 2011, 2014, and 2017, and 

emissions projections for 2028 in its 

Haze Plan. Specifically, table 4–1 

provides a 2011 emissions inventory for 

Florida which includes the visibility 

impairing pollutants and carbon 

monoxide. Emissions from the 2014 and 

2017 NEIs are provided in tables 13–11, 

13–12, and 13–13 for PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2, respectively. For all Florida 

facilities with emissions of either SO2 or 

NOX greater than 100 tpy in 2017, table 

7–28 (SO2) includes actual emissions for 

2017, 2018, and 2019, and 2028 

(remodeled) projected emissions. With 

regard to cost and engineering 

information, the State provided the 

underlying cost calculations associated 

with the cost summaries in section 7.8 

of the Haze Plan for Foley, JEA 

Northside, and WestRock-Fernandina, 

and the proposed FFAs in appendix G 

provide engineering analyses evaluating 

potential new control measures. With 

regard to monitoring data, the State 

provided IMPROVE data for the 

modeling base period plus baseline, 

current (2014–2018), and natural 

conditions for all VISTAS Class I areas 

with more detailed data provided for the 

Florida Class I areas. With regard to 

modeling information, the State 

documented the modeling input and 

outputs and assumptions in the Haze 

Plan and the results of the modeling 

related to RPGs and PSAT source 

impacts at Class I areas. 

d. Assessment of Five Additional 

Factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv): 

EPA proposes to find that Florida has 

satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv) because FDEP 

considered each of the five additional 

factors, discussed the measures the State 

has in place to address each factor (or 

discussed why such measures are not 

needed), and where relevant, explained 

how each factor informed FDEP’s and 

VISTAS’ technical analyses for the 

second planning period. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), EPA proposes to find 

that FDEP adequately addressed the 

requirement to assess emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI, through the State’s 

emissions inventory work for the base 

year of 2011 as projected out to 2028. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), EPA proposes to find 

that Florida adequately addressed this 

requirement to evaluate measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities by describing a state 

regulation that addresses control of 

fugitive airborne dust and considering 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105529 

105Specifically, EPA proposes to find that FDEP 

appropriately responded to and documented 

requests from Georgia to complete FFAs or existing, 

effective control demonstrations for the SO2

emissions from Foley, JEA Northside, Nutrien, 

Seminole, and WestRock-Fernandina in Florida. 

106EPA is proposing action on Florida’s source 

selection and control analyses in this rulemaking on 

the State’s Haze Plan. Thus, EPA is not proposing 

action regarding the adequacy of other states’ 

responses to Florida’s requests for consultation 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) in this proposed 

action. 

the minor impact fine soils have on 

visibility. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), EPA proposes to find 

that Florida adequately addressed 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules by summarizing existing and 

planned source retirements in section 

8.2.2 in the 2021 Plan. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), EPA proposes to find 

that Florida adequately addressed the 

requirement to consider the State’s basic 

smoke management practices for 

prescribed fire used for agricultural and 

wildland vegetation management 

purposes and smoke management 

programs. The State describes its SMP 

to mitigate PM2.5 emissions associated 

with prescribed burning and highlights 

its burn authorization program, operated 

by Florida’s Forest Service, that 

considers the potential impact of smoke 

at sensitive receptors. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), EPA proposes to find 

that Florida assessed the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the second 

planning period in development of the 

2028 RPGs for the Florida Class I areas. 

FDEP also identifies control measures 

included in the VISTAS 2028 emissions 

inventory and source retirements and 

replacements. FDEP used the 2011 base 

year emissions inventory to project 

emissions from various source sectors to 

2028, the end of the second planning 

period. FDEP, through VISTAS, 

completed CAMx modeling to estimate 

visibility impairment in 2028 based on 

projected 2028 emissions from the 2011 

base year inventory and using IMPROVE 

monitoring data for 2009–2013. As 

mentioned previously, atmospheric 

ammonium sulfate is the largest 

contributor to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas in the Southeast. VISTAS 

emission sensitivity modeling 

determined that the most effective way 

to reduce ammonium sulfate is to 

reduce SO2 emissions from EGUs and 

non-utility industrial point sources. 

e. Interstate Consultation: Based on 

the consultation documentation 

described in section III.C.2.e of this 

document and section I.F. of the TSD to 

this proposed rulemaking, EPA 

proposes to find that Florida has met the 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(ii) to consult with those 

states with Class I areas that Florida 

emissions impact for visibility and to 

consult with those states whose sources 

are impacting Florida’s Class I areas.105

Additionally, Florida appropriately 

responded to and documented requests 

from MANE–VU to address upwind 

emissions from sources in VISTAS 

states. Lastly, FDEP completed the 

requested emissions control analyses for 

the five facilities and provided the 

State’s analyses and conclusions of 

these analyses in section 7.6 and 7.8 of 

the 2021 Plan and 2024 Supplement. 

EPA also proposes to find that FDEP 

appropriately consulted with other 

states, namely Kentucky, Georgia, and 

Alabama regarding specific sources that 

are reasonably anticipated to contribute 

to visibility impairment at Class I areas 

in Florida in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(ii). EPA proposes to 

conclude that Florida appropriately 

documented its interstate consultations 

regarding Florida sources reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas outside of 

the State and sources in other states 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment at Florida’s Class 

I areas.106

D. RPGs 

1. RHR Requirement: Section 

51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements 

pertaining to RPGs for each Class I area. 

Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in 

which a Class I area is located to 

establish RPGs—one each for the most 

impaired and clearest days—reflecting 

the visibility conditions that will be 

achieved at the end of the planning 

period as a result of the emission 

limitations, compliance schedules and 

other measures required under 

paragraph (f)(2) to be in states’ LTS, as 

well as implementation of other CAA 

requirements. The LTS, as reflected by 

the RPGs, must provide for an 

improvement in visibility on the most 

impaired days relative to the baseline 

period and ensure no degradation on the 

clearest days relative to the baseline 

period. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies 

in circumstances in which a Class I 

area’s RPG for the most impaired days 

represents a slower rate of visibility 

improvement than the URP calculated 

under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in 

which a mandatory Class I area is 

located establishes an RPG for the most 

impaired days that provides for a slower 

rate of visibility improvement than the 

URP, the state must demonstrate that 

there are no additional emission 

reduction measures for anthropogenic 

sources or groups of sources in the state 

that would be reasonable to include in 

its LTS. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) 

requires that if a state contains sources 

that are reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area in another state, and the 

RPG for the most impaired days in that 

Class I area is above the URP, the 

upwind state must provide the same 

demonstration. 

2. State Assessment: Florida 

identified the 2028 RPGs for each of its 

Class I areas in deciviews. Florida’s 

RPGs are listed in table 3. 

TABLE 3—FLORIDA CLASS I AREAS’ 2028 RPGS AND URP IN DECIVIEWS (dv) 

Class I area 2028 RPG clearest 

20% 

2028 RPG most 

impaired 20% 2028 URP 

Chassahowitzka ........................................................................................................... 12.54 16.79 18.36 

St. Marks ...................................................................................................................... 11.59 16.43 18.26 

Everglades ................................................................................................................... 9.88 13.95 15.06 

Florida’s 2028 RPGs on the 20 percent 

most impaired days are below the URP 

for all Florida Class I areas. The 2028 

RPGs on the 20 percent clearest days 

showed no degradation since the 2000– 

2004 baseline period. 

3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to 

determine that Florida has satisfied the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3) relating to RPGs. Florida 

provided 2028 RPGs for the most 

impaired and clearest days for the three 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105530 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

107PM10 is particulate matter of greater than or 

equal to 10 micrometers (mm) in diameter. 

Class I areas in the State subject to the 

RHR. Specifically, the State established 

2028 RPGs expressed in deciviews that 

reflect the visibility conditions that are 

projected to be achieved by the end of 

the second planning period as a result 

of implementation of the LTS and other 

CAA requirements. Florida’s 2028 RPGs 

show an improvement in visibility for 

the 20 percent most impaired days since 

the baseline period (2000–2004) and 

show no degradation in visibility for the 

20 percent clearest days since the 

baseline period. The RPGs in the Haze 

Plan provide for a faster rate of visibility 

improvement than the URP, and thus, 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) does not 

apply to Florida. Additionally, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), does not apply to 

Florida because the Class I areas 

impacted by emissions from Florida’s 

sources are below their respective URPs. 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Regional Haze Plan Requirements 

1. RHR Requirement: Section 

51.308(f)(6) specifies that each 

comprehensive revision of a state’s 

regional haze SIP must contain or 

provide for certain elements, including 

monitoring strategies, emissions 

inventories, and any reporting, 

recordkeeping and other measures 

needed to assess and report on 

visibility. A main requirement of this 

subsection is for states with Class I areas 

to submit monitoring strategies for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

on visibility impairment. Compliance 

with this requirement may be met 

through participation in the IMPROVE 

network. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to 

provide for the establishment of any 

additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess whether 

reasonable progress goals to address 

regional haze for all mandatory Class I 

areas within the state are being 

achieved. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs 

to provide for procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information 

are used in determining the contribution 

of emissions from within the state to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I areas both within and 

outside the state. Section 

51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to 

Florida, as it has Class I areas. Section 

51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to 

provide for the reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state. Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires 

SIPs to provide for a statewide 

inventory of emissions of pollutants that 

are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment, 

including emissions for the most recent 

year for which data are available and 

estimates of future projected emissions. 

It also requires a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically. Under 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(4), if EPA or the FLM of 

an affected Class I area has advised a 

State that additional monitoring is 

needed to assess RAVI, the State must 

include in its SIP revision for the 

second planning period an appropriate 

strategy for evaluating such impairment. 

2. State Assessment: 

a. Section 51.308(f)(6)(i): Florida 

relies on the IMPROVE monitoring 

network to meet the monitoring strategy 

requirements and contends that the 

existing IMPROVE monitors for the 

State’s Class I areas are adequate and no 

additional monitoring sites or 

equipment are needed to assess whether 

RPGs for all mandatory Class I areas 

within the State are being achieved. 

b. Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii): Florida 

states that data produced by the 

IMPROVE monitoring network will be 

used for preparing the five-year progress 

reports and the 10-year comprehensive 

SIP revisions, each of which rely on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

IMPROVE monitor data. 

c. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii): This 

provision applies to states with no 

mandatory Class I areas, and therefore, 

does not apply to Florida. 

d. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv): With 

respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iv), NPS 

manages and oversees the IMPROVE 

monitoring network and reviews, 

verifies, and validates IMPROVE data 

before its submission to EPA’s Air 

Quality System. Florida believes the 

existing IMPROVE monitors for the 

State’s Class I areas are sufficient for the 

purposes of this Haze Plan. Florida 

believes that participation of the state 

organizations, including FDEP, in the 

IMPROVE Steering Committee 

adequately represents the needs of the 

State. 

e. Section 51.308(f)(6)(v): FDEP 

provided a statewide, baseline 

emissions inventory of pollutants for the 

year 2011 in table 4–1 of the 2021 Plan 

which includes the following 

pollutants: carbon monoxide, NH3, NOX, 

PM10,107 PM2.5, SO2, and VOC. The 2011 

base year modeling platform was the 

best platform available at the time the 

modeling work began in late 2017. 

Emissions and modeling work should 

begin three years before haze plans are 

due because of the significant amount of 

time required to complete the work one 

year in advance of preparing the haze 

plans. FDEP, through VISTAS, 

discussed the selection of modeling 

platforms with EPA and reliance on the 

2011 base year. 

In addition, FDEP provided in tables 

13–11, 13–12, 13–13 of the 2021 Plan 

statewide emissions data for 2014 (NEI), 

2017 (NEI), and 2018 emissions 

projections developed in the first 

planning period for PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2, respectively, by source category in 

support of the progress report elements 

of its plan. Also, in table 7–1 of the 2021 

Plan, FDEP includes both the 2011 

actual and 2028 projected emissions for 

the criteria air pollutants, including 

SO2, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 for all 

VISTAS states including Florida. FDEP 

commits to periodically update its 

statewide emissions inventories under 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v). 

f. Section 51.308(f)(6)(vi): There are 

no elements, including reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other measures, 

necessary to address and report on 

visibility for Florida’s Class I areas or 

Class I areas outside the State that are 

affected by sources in Florida. 

g. Section 51.308(f)(4): With respect to 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), the State did not 

include a strategy for evaluating RAVI 

for any Class I areas because no Federal 

agency requested additional monitoring 

to assess RAVI. 

3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to 

find that Florida has satisfied the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(4) and (6) related to RAVI, 

visibility monitoring, and emissions 

inventories. 

With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), 

EPA proposes to find that this 

requirement does not apply to Florida at 

this time because neither EPA nor the 

FLMs requested additional monitoring 

to assess RAVI. 

EPA proposes to find that Florida 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), which is 

generally met by the State’s continued 

participation in the IMPROVE 

monitoring network and the VISTAS 

RPO, for the following reasons. 

With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), 

EPA proposes to find that the existing 

IMPROVE monitors relied upon for the 

State’s three Class I areas are adequate, 

and thus, additional monitoring sites or 

equipment are not needed to assess 

whether RPGs for all Class I areas 

within the State are being achieved. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(6)(ii), Florida has procedures 

by which monitoring data from the 

IMPROVE will be used to for preparing 

the five-year progress reports and the 

10-year comprehensive SIP revisions. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(6)(iii), this provision is 

applicable for states with no Class I 

areas and does not apply to Florida. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105531 

108The 2010 Haze Plan was amended twice. See 

78 FR 53250 (August 29, 2013). 

109See table 13–6 (20 percent most impaired 

days) and table 13–7 (20 percent clearest days) of 

the 2021 Plan. 

110 ‘Model Projection’ = RPG and ‘Observation’ = 

IMPROVE data in figures 13–4 through 13–9 of the 

2021 Plan. 

With respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(6)(iv), EPA proposes to find 

that Florida’s participation in the 

IMPROVE Steering Committee and the 

IMPROVE monitoring network 

addresses this requirement. 

With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v), 

EPA proposes to find that Florida’s 

continued participation in VISTAS’ 

efforts for projecting future emissions 

and continued compliance with the 

requirements of the AERR to 

periodically update emissions 

inventories satisfies the requirement to 

provide for an emissions inventory for 

the most recent year for which data are 

available. EPA proposes to find that 

Florida adequately documented that no 

further elements are necessary at this 

time for the State to assess and report on 

visibility pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(6)(vi). 

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Toward the RPGs 

1. RHR Requirement: Section 

51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic 

comprehensive revisions of states’ 

regional haze plans address the progress 

report requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of 

these requirements is to evaluate 

progress toward the applicable RPGs for 

each Class I area within the state and 

each Class I area outside the state that 

may be affected by emissions from 

within that state. Section 51.308(g)(1) 

and (2) apply to all states and require a 

description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in a state’s first planning 

period regional haze plan and a 

summary of the emission reductions 

achieved through implementation of 

those measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) 

applies only to states with Class I areas 

within their borders and requires such 

states to assess current visibility 

conditions, changes in visibility relative 

to baseline (2000–2004) visibility 

conditions, and changes in visibility 

conditions relative to the period 

addressed in the first planning period 

progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4) 

applies to all states and requires an 

analysis tracking changes in emissions 

of pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment from all sources and sectors 

since the period addressed by the first 

planning period progress report. This 

provision further specifies the year or 

years through which the analysis must 

extend depending on the type of source 

and the platform through which its 

emission information is reported. 

Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which also 

applies to all states, requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state have occurred since the 

period addressed by the first planning 

period progress report, including 

whether such changes were anticipated 

and whether they have limited or 

impeded expected progress toward 

reducing emissions and improving 

visibility. 

2. State Assessment: With respect to 

the progress report elements pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), FDEP addressed 

these elements in section 13 of the 2021 

Plan for the period 2014 to 2019. 

Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and 

(2), FDEP describes the status of the 

implementation of the measures of the 

LTS from the first planning period in 

section 13.2 of the 2021 Plan and 

provides a summary of the emission 

reductions achieved by implementing 

those measures as such data is available 

in section 13.3 of the 2021 Plan. With 

respect to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1), section 

13.1.1 of the 2021 Plan lists key 

emissions control measures relied upon 

for Florida’s first regional haze plan 

submitted March 19, 2010 (‘‘2010 Haze 

Plan’’).108 Section 13.3.2 identifies key 

measures that contributed to emission 

reductions during the first planning 

period but were not a part of the LTS 

for the first period (e.g., 2010 SO2

NAAQS). 

With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), 

Florida continued to focus on SO2

emissions reductions because the State 

determined that ammonium sulfate was 

the most important contributor to 

visibility impairment and fine particle 

mass on the 20 percent best and 20 

percent worst days in the first planning 

period. Florida reported on emission 

reductions achieved by Federal and 

state measures relied upon to project the 

2018 RPGs for the first period haze plan, 

including 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway 

Rule, Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur 

Program, and the North Carolina Clean 

Smokestacks Act. In addition, the State 

provided emission reductions for 

sources evaluated for controls in the 

first period haze plan as follows. Table 

13–4 of the 2021 Plan lists the 15 

facilities that had units for which a 

reasonable progress determination was 

made and the current status. All 

facilities that were required to 

implement reasonable progress controls 

or measures have met their compliance 

dates. During the 2014–2019 period, 

SO2 emissions from the units listed in 

table 13–4 decreased by 60,752 tpy. 

Table 13–5 lists the 12 sources for 

which a BART control determination 

was made. Sources that were exempt 

from BART analysis or shut down prior 

to submission of the first regional haze 

SIP are not listed. All BART controls 

have been implemented as of December 

31, 2018. During the 2014–2019 period, 

SO2 emissions from these units 

decreased by 43,416 tons per year, NOX

emissions decreased by 10,073 tpy, and 

PM emissions decreased by 1,742 tpy. 

Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), FDEP 

calculated for Florida’s three Class I 

areas: the current visibility conditions 

(2014–2018); the difference between 

current visibility conditions compared 

to the baseline; and the change in 

visibility impairment for the most and 

least impaired days over the past five 

years.109 FDEP concluded that 

IMPROVE monitoring data for 2014– 

2018 show that all Florida Class I areas 

are well below the 2018 RPGs for the 20 

percent most impaired days and there is 

no degradation on the 20 percent 

clearest days, which is illustrated in 

figures 13–4 through 13–9 of the 2021 

Plan.110

Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in 

section 13.5 of the 2021 Plan, FDEP 

provided emissions trends from 2014 

through 2019 for SO2 and NOX which 

reflect the emissions reductions from 

the measures in the first planning 

period LTS. In summary, from 2014 to 

2019, statewide EGU emissions of SO2

and NOX have reduced (in percent) by 

82.77 and 48.31, respectively. Statewide 

EGU SO2 emissions decreased from 

99,074 tpy in 2014 to 17,075 tpy in 2019 

as shown in table 13–14 of the 2021 

Plan. Statewide EGU NOX emissions 

decreased from 442,412 tpy in 2014 to 

228,673 tpy in 2019. Additionally, in 

table 13–13, FDEP provides statewide 

SO2 emissions information for Florida 

from the 2014 NEI and 2017 NEI 

inventories. Again, total statewide SO2

emissions are shown to have decreased 

47.53 percent from 164,468 tpy in 2014 

to 78,173 tpy in 2017. 

Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), FDEP 

reviewed anthropogenic SO2, and NOX

emissions trends based on emissions 

information included in the 2014 and 

2017 NEIs for the VISTAS states and all 

of the RPOs. The data show a decline in 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 emissions from 

2014 through 2017 NEI and these 

emissions are lower than the 2018 

VISTAS RPG in most cases as shown in 

table 13–11, 13–12, and 13–13 of the 

2021 Plan. Florida concluded that there 

does not appear to be any significant 

change in anthropogenic emissions 

within Florida that would limit or 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105532 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

111FDEP provided draft plans to the FLMs on 

April 2, 2021, and June 8, 2023. 

112The June 9, 2021, Prehearing Florida Haze 

Plan was issued for a State public notice and had 

a comment period that closed on July 9, 2021. The 

public hearing was held on July 15, 2021. 113See section 7.6.3 of the 2021 Plan. 

impede progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions or improving visibility. 

Section II of the TSD to this proposed 

rulemaking provides a more detailed 

summary of the State’s assessment of 

how Florida addressed requirements for 

periodic reports describing progress 

toward the RPGs for the State’s Class I 

areas pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5). 

3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to 

find that FDEP has met the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because 

its SIP submission describes the 

measures included in the LTS from the 

first planning period, as well as the 

status of their implementation and the 

emission reductions achieved through 

such implementation. EPA proposes to 

find that FDEP met the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the State 

reported on the visibility conditions and 

changes at Florida’s Class I areas. EPA 

proposes to find that FDEP met the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) by 

providing an adequate analysis tracking 

the changes in emissions since the first 

period progress report using available 

emissions data since 2013 and 

appropriately included the 2017 NEI 

data, which is the most recent triennial 

emissions inventory submission from 

Florida prior to submission of the Haze 

Plan and included the annual 2019 

emissions data. Regarding 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(5), FDEP believes that there 

does not appear to be any significant 

change in anthropogenic emissions 

within Florida that have occurred since 

the period addressed in the most recent 

plan that would limit or impede 

progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions or improving visibility. For 

these reasons, EPA is proposing to find 

that Florida has met the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(5). 

G. Requirements for State and FLM 

Coordination 

1. CAA/RHR Requirement: Section 

169A(d) of the Act requires states to 

consult with FLMs before holding the 

public hearing on a proposed regional 

haze SIP, and to include a summary of 

the FLMs’ conclusions and 

recommendations in the notice to the 

public. In addition, § 51.308(i)(2)’s FLM 

consultation provision requires a state 

to provide FLMs with an opportunity 

for consultation that is early enough in 

the state’s policy analyses of its 

emission reduction obligation so that 

information and recommendations 

provided by the FLMs’ can 

meaningfully inform the state’s 

decisions on its LTS. If the consultation 

has taken place at least 120 days before 

a public hearing or public comment 

period, the opportunity for consultation 

will be deemed early enough. 

Regardless, the opportunity for 

consultation must be provided at least 

60 days before a public hearing or 

public comment period at the state 

level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides 

two substantive topics on which FLMs 

must be provided an opportunity to 

discuss with states: assessment of 

visibility impairment in any Class I area 

and recommendations on the 

development and implementation of 

strategies to address visibility 

impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) 

requires states, in developing their 

implementation plans, to include a 

description of how they addressed 

FLMs’ comments. Section 51.308(i)(4) 

requires that the regional haze SIP 

revision provide procedures for 

continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program. 

2. State Assessment: 

a. General: As required by CAA 

section 169A(d), Florida consulted with 

the FLMs prior to opening both State 

public comment periods 111 and 

included summaries of the conclusions 

and recommendations of the FLMs in 

section 10.4.1 with copies of the FLMs’ 

comments in appendices H–4 and H–5 

of the proposed plan dated June 9, 2021, 

and in the public participation section 

of the proposed supplement dated 

January 19, 2024. 

With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) 

FDEP offered the opportunity to consult 

on the May 18, 2021, draft Florida Haze 

Plan to the three FLM agencies. 

Additionally, FDEP shared with the 

FLMs the June 9, 2021, Prehearing 

Florida Haze Plan.112 A summary of this 

consultation process is discussed and 

documented in section 10.4.1 of the 

2021 Plan with supporting information 

in appendix H and appendix F. 

Regarding FLM consultation related to 

the 2024 Supplement development, 

FDEP offered the opportunity to consult 

on the 2024 Supplement to the three 

FLM agencies on June 8, 2023. The 2024 

Supplement was issued for State public 

notice and comment on January 19, 

2024, with a public hearing scheduled 

February 27, 2024, and a close of 

comment period February 19, 2024; 

however, FDEP received a request for an 

extension of the comment period and 

granted the request by extending the 

comment period to March 8, 2024. The 

public hearing, which was rescheduled 

for March 20, 2024, was cancelled 

because FDEP did not receive any 

requests for a hearing. A summary of 

this consultation process is discussed 

and documented in the public 

participation section of the 2024 

Supplement. 

To address 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), FDEP 

provided responses to NPS comments in 

section 10.4.1 of the 2021 Plan and in 

the public participation section of the 

2024 Supplement. 

With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), 

Florida has established ongoing 

consultation procedures with the FLMs, 

which includes offering the FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation upon 

request and to comply with 

consultations requirements in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) for 

progress reports and plan revisions. 

b. State Responses to FLM Comments: 

To address 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), Florida 

provided responses to comments 

received from NPS in section 10.4.1 of 

the 2021 Plan, which are summarized in 

brief below. In the 2021 Plan, NPS 

comments received are located in 

appendices H–4 and H–5. Appendix 

H–4 contains documentation of a May 

18, 2021, consultation call that NPS 

held with the FDEP. Representatives 

from FWS and USFS also attended. NPS 

requested clarification on why the 

Miami-Dade Water and Sewer 

Department facility was not selected for 

analysis. FDEP clarified that recent 

actual emissions are significantly lower 

due to the facility’s use of lower sulfur 

content fuel, which the facility is 

expected to continue to use. 

Additionally, FDEP stated that the AoI 

analysis likely overpredicted this 

facility’s impact at Everglades since this 

is a small source located very near the 

Class I area.113

Additionally, the 2021 Plan states that 

NPS made recommendations to update 

the interest rates in the FFA cost 

analyses. NPS also noted that the 

Florida Everglades have not observed 

increases in nitrate concentrations on 

the 20 percent most impaired days and 

that it is the least impaired NPS Class 

I areas in the VISTAS region, thus the 

VISTAS-wide methodologies used to 

select sources and pollutants for 

reasonable progress analyses were of no 

concern. 

FDEP also addresses NPS comments 

in the public participation section of the 

2024 Supplement. NPS acknowledges 

FDEP’s inclusion of the Mosaic-South 

Pierce facility in the supplement and 

recommends that FDEP include the 

facility’s emission history and consider 

the additional information for MosaicSouth Pierce that NPS provided 

concerning the evaluation of an Idaho 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 105533 

114The consultation did not occur in person as 

stated in the CAA due to the convenience and 

efficiency of using email, phone calls, and video 

meetings. 

115A description of Florida’s response to FLM 

comments can be found in section 10.4, and under 

the public participation section of the Haze Plan. 

116See the public participation section of the 

2024 Supplement for details. 

facility with similar SAPs. In response, 

FDEP states that it determined that the 

use of post-process scrubbers for the 

dual adsorption process sulfuric acid 

plant at Mosaic-South Pierce was not 

considered to be cost-effective for the 

facility and that SO2 emission 

reductions were achieved through an 

SO2 emission limit in permit 1050055– 

037–AC, which was approved into 

Florida’s SIP on August 4, 2023 (88 FR 

51702). 

3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to 

find that Florida addressed all FLM 

consultation requirements in the CAA 

and RHR. With respect to CAA 169A(d), 

Florida consulted with the FLMs prior 

to the State’s public comment 

periods 114 and included a summary of 

the conclusions and recommendations 

of the FLMs in the proposed plans 

issued for public review.115

FDEP fully addressed the requirement 

for FLM consultation under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2) because FDEP offered the 

draft Florida Haze Plan on April 2, 

2021, prior to the start of FDEP’s public 

comment period which opened on June 

9, 2021, and closed on July 9, 2021. 

Additionally, FDEP offered the FLMs a 

review of the draft 2024 Supplement on 

June 8, 2023, prior to the start of the 

comment period on January 19, 2024.116

EPA proposes to find that Florida has 

met its requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2) to consult with the FLMs on 

its Haze Plan for the second planning 

period. 

EPA proposes to find that Florida 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) by 

providing responses to the FLM 

comments in section 10.4.1 of the 2021 

Plan. 

EPA proposes to find that Florida 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) by 

establishing in its 2021 Plan continuing 

consultation procedures as summarized 

above. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as 

discussed above in this preamble, EPA 

is proposing to incorporate by reference 

into Florida’s SIP the following 

conditions from the listed FDEP Air 

Construction Permits: Conditions 7 and 

28 in Subsection A of Section 3 of the 

Duke Crystal River Citrus Co. Combined 

Cycle Permit No. 0170004–047–AC 

(State-effective December 16, 2014); 

Condition 1 of Section 3 of the Duke 

Crystal River Permit No. 0170004–059– 

AC (State-effective October 30, 2020); 

Conditions 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 

18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of 

Subsection A of Section 3 and 

Conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of 

Subsection B of Section 3 of the 

Georgia-Pacific Foley Mill Permit No. 

1230001–121–AC (State-effective 

October 20, 2023); Conditions 9, 14(a), 

31(a) of Section III of the JEA Northside 

Units 1 and 2 Permit No. 0310045–003– 

AC (State-effective July 14, 1999), and 

Condition 2 of Subsection A of Section 

3 of Permit No. 0310045–059–AC (Stateeffective February 16, 2023); Conditions 

2, 5, and 6 of Section 3 of the JEA 

Northside Unit 3 Permit Nos. 0310045– 

057–AC (State-effective June 17, 2021), 

and Condition 2 of Subsection A of 

Section 3 of Permit No. 0310045–062– 

AC (State-effective August 24, 2023); 

Condition 3 of Subsection A of Section 

3 of the Seminole Generating Station 

Permit No. 1070025–037–AC (Stateeffective April 14, 2021); Conditions 12 

and 13 of Subsection C of Section 3 of 

the TECO-Big Bend Permit No. 

0570039–129–AC (State-effective 

August 11, 2020); and Conditions 2, 3, 

and 4 of Subsection A of Section 3 of 

the WestRock-Fernandina Beach Mill 

Permit No. 0890003–072–AC (Stateeffective June 24, 2021) and Condition 

5 of Subsection A of Section 3 of Permit 

No. 0890003–074–AC (State-effective 

December 16, 2021). EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, the SIP available 

through www.regulations.gov and at the 

EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

October 8, 2021, June 14, 2024, and 

October 28, 2024, SIP submissions, as 

satisfying the regional haze 

requirements for the second planning 

period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f). 

Thus, EPA is proposing to incorporate 

by reference into Florida’s SIP the 

permit conditions identified in section 

V above. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
105534 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) 

builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 

and defines EJ as, among other things, 

the just treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of 

income, race, color, national origin, or 

Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency 

decision-making and other Federal 

activities that affect human health and 

the environment. 

FDEP did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this proposed 

action. Due to the nature of the action 

being proposed here, this proposed 

action is expected to have a neutral to 

positive impact on the air quality of the 

affected area. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this proposed action, 

and there is no information in the 

record inconsistent with the stated goal 

of Executive Order 12898/14096 of 

achieving EJ for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon moNOXide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 19, 2024. 

Jeaneanne Gettle, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30751 Filed 12–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS